2026:JHHC:18999-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.01 of 2025 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand Police Head Quarters, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Range, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. ..........Appellants. -Versus- Umesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Tarkeshwar Singh, resident of village-Rupas, Nirpur, P.O. Ramnagar, Karari Kaihhar, P.S. Athmalgola, Barh, District Patna (Bihar). ........... Respondent ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, S.C.-IV For the Respondents: ----- Reserved on 22.06.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026 Per: Rajesh Shankar, J. I.A No.13819 of 2024: 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 163 days in instituting the instant appeal. 2. The reasons assigned in the present interlocutory application is found sufficient for condoning the aforesaid delay. 3. Accordingly, the delay of 163 days in instituting the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 2 4. I.A. No.13819 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No.01 of 2025: 5. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6549 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent quashing and setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority vide Memo No. 2951 dated 31.08.2011 as well as the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities vide Memo No.501 dated 10.05.2012 and Memo No. 289 dated 09.10.2012 respectively. It has further been directed to extend the consequential benefits to the writ petitioner upon quashment of the punishment order. 6. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner had joined the service on 04.08.1989 as Sub-Inspector (Direct Recruitment). He was posted as the In- charge of Muffasil Police Station, Chaibasa at the relevant point of time in the year 2010. On 07.05.2010, an F.I.R. being Muffasil P.S. Case No.45/2010 was lodged under Sections 353, 186, 506, 504/34, 414, 379, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Mines Act. 7. In the said case, seven trucks were seized by the police. One Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter referred as the complainant) filed petition for release of two trucks bearing registration nos.JH10G5897 & BR2F3855 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa sought report from the investigating officer 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 3 of the case, however, the said report was not submitted in the court within the stipulated time. 8. According to the complainant, he met the Officer-in-Charge/writ- petitioner, who told the complainant to satisfy the Investigating Officer of the case for sending the report to the court. The complainant gave Rs.4,500/- to the Investigating Officer, however, the report was not sent. The investigating officer demanded Rs. 10,000/- for sending the report which was refused by the complainant and he asked back Rs.4,500/- from the Investigating Officer, however, the Investigating Officer neither sent the report to the court nor returned the said amount. 9. Thereafter, the complainant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa whereupon an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa submitting a report with respect to allegation of the complainant against the writ petitioner as true. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and a memo of charge was issued to him alleging that the investigating officer had demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant with the consent of the writ petitioner. 10. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chakradharpur was appointed as the conducting/inquiry officer who issued show cause notices to the writ petitioner on different dates, however, he did not participate in the inquiry. Finally, the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 12.08.2011 finding the charges against the writ petitioner proved. The disciplinary authority i.e., the 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 4 Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa agreed with the finding of the inquiry officer and passed the order of punishment as contained in Memo No.2951 dated 31.08.2011 withholding one annual increment of the writ petitioner equivalent to two black marks. It was further ordered that the writ petitioner was not to be paid any additional amount except the subsistence allowance during the suspension period. 11. The writ petitioner preferred appeal on 28.02.2012 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Singhbhum, (Kolhan) Range, Chaibasa, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision before the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police on 21.05.2012, which was also dismissed on 09.10.2012. 12. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6549 of 2012 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 16.05.2024 observing that mandatory second show cause notice along with the copy of inquiry repot was not served to the writ petitioner before inflicting the penalty. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the inquiry officer had provided ample opportunities to the writ petitioner for submitting his reply against the charges framed, however, he deliberately and intentionally did not respond to the same. 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 5 14. It is submitted that there are no procedural lapses in conducting the departmental proceeding, rather the same has been done strictly in accordance with law. 15. It is further submitted that co-delinquent namely Manohar Jharian Minz (Investigating Officer) had confessed his guilt before the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and had also supported the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. 16. It is also contended that since the writ petitioner himself did not choose to participate in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer, no prejudice can be said to have caused to him by not serving the second show cause notice. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record. 18. It is an undisputed fact that the second show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report was not served to the writ petitioner before imposing major penalty upon him. 19. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no need to serve second show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report to the writ petitioner since he did not choose to participate in the inquiry proceeding despite issuance of repeated notices to him. It is further contended that a departmental proceeding does not vitiate on mere ground of not serving a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee unless it is shown as to what prejudice has been caused to him by the said non-service on the part of the employer. 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 6 20. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be profitable to refer herein the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL & Others Vs. B. Karunakar & Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein it has been held that non-supply of a copy of the report of the inquiry officer to the employee facing a disciplinary proceeding, amounts to denial of natural justice. However, in the later part of the judgment, it has been observed that the factual issue of prejudice caused to the employee on account of non-furnishing of a copy of the inquiry report has to be considered in the facts of each case. It has been also observed that where furnishing of the inquiry report does not make any difference to the ultimate outcome of the matter, it would be a perversion of justice to allow the employee concerned to resume his duties and to get all consequential benefits. 21. Now, the question falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether any prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner by not serving a copy of the inquiry report to him? 22. It is evident from the inquiry report that not a single witness was examined or cross-examined before the inquiry officer to prove the charges against the writ petitioner. Even the complainant was not examined during the inquiry proceeding and the petitioner was found guilty by the inquiry officer only relying upon the documents produced before him. 23. In the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, the fact was that 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 7 the management had only tendered the documents on which they had relied upon without examining witnesses to prove the said documents. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the inquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Moreover, the purported evidence collected during investigation of a criminal case by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself cannot be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. 24. We are of the considered view that though the writ petitioner failed to attend the inquiry proceeding, the inquiry officer was duty bound to examine at least the complainant on the basis of whose complaint, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. Thus, non-examination of the complainant during the departmental proceeding is an inexcusable lapse and has certainly caused serious prejudice to the writ petitioner. 25. The purpose of furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee is not a mere formality, it is rather aimed to provide him an opportunity to meet the reasoning given in the said report and to controvert the conclusion reached by the inquiry officer. Unless the copy of the inquiry report is supplied to the delinquent, he would not be in a position to know as to whether the finding recorded by the inquiry officer is supported by any 2026:JHHC:18999-DB 8 material or is based with no evidence. Had the writ petitioner been given an opportunity to respond to the inquiry report, he could have raised the issue before the disciplinary authority regarding serious lapses committed by the inquiry officer. The denial of supply of the copy of inquiry report, therefore, has caused a grave prejudice to the writ petitioner. 26. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention of the appellants that no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner by not serving him the second show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report. 27. Under the said circumstance, we are of the considered view that the disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner was not conducted in due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Since writ petitioner has already retired from service in the year 2022, the learned Single Judge has rightly not remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to rehear the writ petitioner after serving him the second show cause notice along with copy of the inquiry report. 28. The present Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 29. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is also dismissed. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 30th June, 2026 A.F.R. Rohit Uploaded on 30.06.2026