2026:JHHC:20499-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 49 of 2024 Lalan Ram aged about 58 years, S/o Bansropan Ram, R/o Rahambigha, P.O. Satbahini, P.S. Bishrampur, Dist. Palamau, State Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi having its registered office at Jharkhand Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, State Jharkhand 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Arms Forces, Dhurwa, having its registered office at P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, State Jharkhand 4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Arms Forces-10, Mahila Vahini, Hotwar, having its registered office at P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi, State Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties --------- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Mr Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II --------- 04/Dated: 10.07.2026 1. Heard Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, who appears with Mr Krishna Prajapati, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, and Mr Suresh Kumar, learned S.C. (L &C) II for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for review of the order dated 12th of January 2024 by which the appellant’s L.P.A. No. 247 of 2023 was dismissed. 2026:JHHC:20499-DB 3. The Office has pointed out that this review petition was filed 11 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. 4. Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, has submitted that there is some confusion in calculating the limitation period and hence the delay. 5. Rather than spending any time on this issue of delay, we accept the explanation and condone the delay, if any, in filing this review petition. 6. Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, submitted that the review petitioner had exceeded his sanctioned leave of 10 days by only 11 days. He further submitted that, even assuming this were correct, the petitioner had offered a sufficient explanation for the overstay of leave. In any event, Mr Mishra submitted that the penalty of dismissal from service for such a minor lapse was grossly disproportionate and defied the doctrine of proportionality which is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. Mr Mishra further submitted that in this case the enquiry was ex parte because the review petitioner was never validly served notice in the enquiry proceedings. He submitted that since the enquiry proceeding was in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, the report made and the penalty imposed based on such a report should be declared as void and interfered with. 2026:JHHC:20499-DB 8. Mr Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents, defended the impugned judgment and order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out that notices were served through special messenger and grievance about non-service was not even raised by the review petitioner in the writ petition filed before this Court. 9. Mr Suresh Kumar further pointed out that in 11 previous incidents, this petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent. In some cases, even a minor penalty had been imposed on the review petitioner. Therefore, this was not a case of a solitary event of overstay of leave. He pointed out that the petitioner is a member of the police force and, therefore, greater levels of discipline were expected of the petitioner. He submitted that there is nothing disproportionate about the penalty imposed on the petitioner under these circumstances. 10. Mr Suresh Kumar submitted that there is no error, much less any error apparent from the face of record warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. As regards Mr Suresh Kumar’s second contention regarding the alleged failure to serve the review petitioner in the departmental proceedings, we note that this contention was not raised by the review petitioner in the writ petition filed before this Court. Such a 2026:JHHC:20499-DB contention involving factual adjudication could not have been raised for the first time on appeal/review. We further note that, even on appeal, it was not raised, or, in any event, not raised with any seriousness or pressed. 13. Furthermore, there is a finding of fact that the review petitioner was duly noticed. The record shows that a special messenger was sent to serve the review petitioner, and the enquiry officer noted this during the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the contention of ex parte enquiry for want of effective service upon the petitioner cannot be accepted. 14. As regards proportionality of penalty, this is not a case where the review petitioner overstayed his leave by 11 days on this solitary occasion. There is documentary evidence that, on at least 11 previous occasions, the review petitioner remained similarly absent from duties and was even awarded minor penalties for such unauthorised absence or overstay of sanctioned leave. 15. The review petitioner is a member of the police force, which is supposed to be disciplined. The record shows that the review petitioner was habituated to unauthorised absence, and this was not a solitary case of overstaying leave for some genuine or valid reason. 16. Upon a cumulative consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, we can hardly hold that the penalty imposed upon 2026:JHHC:20499-DB the review petitioner was disproportionate or would shock the court’s conscience. 17. Accordingly, we detect no error, much less any error apparent from the face of the records of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2024, to warrant the exercise of power under review jurisdiction. 18. We dismiss the review petition, without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) July 10, 2026 N.A.F.R. Binit/Mukul/Manoj/Cp.2 Uploaded on 14.07.2026