2026:JHHC:7904 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1702 of 2026 ---- Lal Mohan Sah, S/o Ganpat Sah, R/o Makhni, P.O. & P.S. Makhni, District Godda. … ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Manager, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, at Ranchi, P.O., P.S. and District Ranchi. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, at Ranchi, P.O., P.S. and District Ranchi. 4. The Inspector General of Police (Provision), Jharkhand, at Ranchi, P.O., P.S. and District Ranchi. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. and District Bokaro. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District Godda. 7. The Company Commander, Jharkhand Armed Police, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. and District Bokaro. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV ---- 03/ 18.03.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s, direction /s or order/to reconsider the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 8.8.2019 passed by the respondent Company Commander, Jharkhand Armed Police, Bokaro, which has been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.3.2020 and the revisional authority vide order dated 19.11.2020 in as much as the petitioner, who has been dismissed from service, on account of non furnishing of information regarding a criminal case being Godda (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 238/2014 pending against him, has after full-fledged trial resulted in acquittal and exoneration of the petitioner vide judgement dated 9.10.2025 passed by competent court of jurisdiction. 2026:JHHC:7904 -: 2 :- ii. The petitioner further and consequently prays for reinstatement in with continuity and all consequential benefits and arrears; 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in 2011 pursuant to Advertisement No.02 of 2011 and was duly selected and appointed in 2015. Subsequently, as per him, due to a family dispute, a criminal case was lodged against him being Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014 under Sections 341/323/504/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which he was granted bail. After 3 years of serving, he was suspended and subjected to a departmental inquiry alleging suppression of the fact about the criminal case and false and fabricated document related to residential and character certificate. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service in 08.08.2019. He also preferred appeal which was rejected on 29.03.2020 and revision application was also rejected on 09.11.2020 and punishment order has been confirmed. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1142 of 2021 challenging the dismissal order, appellate order and the revision order which was also dismissed in 14.02.2022. However, in 2025, he was acquitted in the criminal case, after which he also requests the authorities for reconsideration of his dismissal by filing representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of applying for the post of Constable, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner, and therefore, there was no suppression of any material fact. He further submits that criminal case in question was lodged after the completion of the selection process, due to personal and family enmity. He submits that at the time of appointment there was no criminal case lodged against the petitioner. As per him, he is a resident of Mauza Makhni, Godda, and has school certificates to prove it. He also received a valid character certificate from the Superintendent of Police after proper verification. He cooperated in the enquiry and explained that no case was pending against him during the selection process, and the FIR was filed only after he was selected, with bad intentions.A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 17.07.2019 in which the petitioner replied that no case was pending against him during the selection process and that the FIR was falsely lodged afterward, with a discharge application pending. He also submits that now the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and in such circumstances, continuation of the order of dismissal is wholly unjustified and disproportionate. He further submits that the penalty of dismissal imposed 2026:JHHC:7904 -: 3 :- upon the petitioner is harsh, excessive, and shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct. 4. Learned counsel for State submits thatthe impugned order of dismissal has been passed in accordance with law. He further submits that the suppression of material information including his involvement in a criminal case, amounts to lack of integrity and renders, the petitioner unsuitable for service in the police department. He also submits that the petitioner was appointed by concealing material facts including his Character certificate and residential certificate. A second show cause notice dated 17.07.2019 was issued to the petitioner and being not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 08.08.2019. Further dismissal was confirmed in appeal as well as in revision. The Writ Court also did not interfere with the dismissal order. In a disciplined force like the police, utmost honesty, transparency, and integrity are indispensable requirements. He further submits that subsequent acquittal in the criminal case cannot be a ground to set aside the dismissal order which has been upheld upto the High Court in writ petition. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable. A criminal case was pending against him and he suppressed the said fact of pendency of criminal case. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the charge that he has concealed the fact of pendency of a criminal case. It is not a case where he was charged on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case. A charge of getting involved in a criminal case / pendency of a criminal case is different than a charge of suppression of the fact about pendency of a criminal case and not mentioning the same at the time of entering in service. 6. The said charge was inquired into in a Departmental Proceeding and ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he has suppressed the fact that a criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was also dismissed. Ultimately, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1142 of 2021. The High Court, on 14.02.2022, considering several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the writ petition, thereby upholding the order of dismissal. The petitioner accepted the said judgment and rather had not challenged the same. Thus, the charge of suppression about pendency of a criminal case stands proved against the petitioner and the order of dismissal has attained 2026:JHHC:7904 -: 4 :- finality. 7. Now the petitioner has approached this Court to set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that he has been acquitted in the said criminal case. Admittedly, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, but this Court cannot give any relief to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not dismissed from service because of pendency of criminal case against him. He was dismissed on the charge that he has suppressed the pendency of criminal case. As held earlier, there is difference in dismissal on the charge of pendency of a criminal case and on the charge of suppression of pendency of criminal case. If the petitioner would have been dismissed on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, on acquittal, this Court could have reconsidered the dismissal order, but the fact is not the same here. Once the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of suppression about pendency of a criminal case, acquittal of the petitioner in the said criminal case will not entitle him of automatic setting aside of the order of dismissal, which is based on the charge of suppression of fact. 8. In this case, based on what has been observed above, acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case will not help the petitioner. Further, any decision of this Court in setting aside the dismissal order will amount to setting aside the order of Coordinate Bench on that very strength, which would be impermissible and will be against the judicial decorum. Thus, on the peculiar facts of this case, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 18th March, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 30th March, 2026