2026:JHHC:8426 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5183 of 2021 ------ 1. (I) Meera Devi, wife of late Mahendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village Pakhanpura, P.O. Beni Bigha, P.S. Bikram, District Patna, Bihar. 1. (II) Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Singh 1. (III) Soni Devi, D/o Late Mahendra Prasad Singh 1. (IV) Anand Kumar, S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Singh 1. (V) Om Prakash Kumar, S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Singh. All residents of Village Pakhanpura, P.O. Beni Bigha, P.S. Bikram, District Patna, Bihar. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director General of Police, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Additional Director General, Jharkhand Armed Police (in short JAP), at Raja Rani Kothi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Inspector General, JAP, at Raja Rani Kothi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Inspector General, JAP, at Raja Rani Kothi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 6. The Commandant, JAP No.4, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro. 7. Deputy Superintendent cum Enquiry Officer, JAP No.4, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General, With Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV ------ 18/ 23.03.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This writ petition had been filed by the original petitioner – Mahendra Prasad Singh (deceased), for challenging the impugned order as contained in Memo No.1496 dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), whereby after 2026:JHHC:8426 2 remand, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the same sentence which was earlier imposed upon the original petitioner in the departmental proceeding and which was set aside in the earlier round of litigation. He had also prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. the date on which he attained the age of superannuation. He had also prayed for consequential benefits upon reinstatement. This writ petition is now pursuing by the legal heirs of the original petitioner. 3. The order dated 04.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.302 of 2012 was not challenged before any higher Forum. 4. It is not necessary to deal in detail the facts of this case. Suffice is to say that the original petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding ended with dismissal of the original petitioner. 5. The original petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order of dismissal by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.302 of 2012. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing the said writ petition vide order dated 04.03.2021, had held that since the criminal case which was pending against the original petitioner for charge of murder, had ended in acquittal, there are no procedural latches in conducting the departmental enquiry but the quantum of punishment needs to be revisited. The Coordinate Bench further held that since the charges against the original petitioner were of unauthorized absence and pendency of the criminal case, the interest of justice demands that the respondent should take a fresh decision only on the quantum of punishment. 2026:JHHC:8426 3 The Coordinate Bench thus set aside the order of punishment and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment. It is necessary to quote relevant part of para-5 and 6 of the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench, which are as follows :- “5. ………… After examining the enquiry report as well as the impugned order of punishment it clearly transpires that there is no procedural irregularity in the decision making process and also there is no perversity in the finding. However, since the involvement in the murder case was one of the main charges and the other charge was of unauthorized absence; as such interest of justice demands that the respondents should take a fresh decision only on the quantum of punishment. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.01.2012 (Annexure-7) and also the order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure-8) is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order only on the question of quantum of punishment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. It goes without saying that if pursuant to the fresh order any benefit is accumulated; the same shall be extended to this petitioner within a further period of eight weeks.” 6. Once the matter was remanded, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bech of this Court in W.P.(S) No.302 of 2012, 2026:JHHC:8426 4 passed the order imposing same punishment, which was earlier set aside i.e. dismissing the original petitioner from service. 7. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the impugned order was passed without understanding the aforesaid order of the Coordinate Bench in a proper perspective. 8. Once the Court has set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter back to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority cannot pass the same order which has been set aside. 9. Further, when the order was not challenged before any higher Forum, the respondents are duty bound to reconsider the quantum of punishment and the quantum of punishment should not be equal or more than the punishment which was imposed in the original order of punishment. These basic aspects have been lost sight of by the Disciplinary Authority. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority amounts to overreaching the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.302 of 2012. This type of attitude of the Disciplinary Authority is taken very seriously by this Court but now I am not inclined to proceed against the Disciplinary Authority. 10. Thus, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.1496 dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside. 10.1. However, the matter is remanded back to respondent No.6 – The Commandant, JAP No.4, Bokaro, to pass a fresh order strictly keeping in view the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the 2026:JHHC:8426 5 Coordinate Bech of this Court in W.P.(S) No.302 of 2012. 10.2. The order should be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. 12. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.66 of 2026 stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 23rd March, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 01.04.2026