2026:JHHC:9694 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1509 of 2025 --------- Sudin Manjhi aged about 74 years, son of Late Jaggu Manjhi, resident of Village-Lokhana P.O. and P.S.-Jarmundi (Taljhari, District-Dumka). ....Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary, Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Post, Government of India, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. and P.S.- Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Director General of Post & I.T., Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. and P.S.- Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. Assistant Director General (GDS) Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. and P.S.- Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 4. Post Master, Dumka, P.O. and P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka. 5. Post Master, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C. Ms. Shreya Shukla, A.C. to A.S.G.I. --------- 09/Dated:-07.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.06.2015; whereby the 3rd respondent found the petitioner guilty of misconduct due to defalcation of Rs.1,44,481/- and order of punishment was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order and submits that this case arises out of the same cause of action for which a criminal case was initiated as well as departmental proceeding was conducted and in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been 2026:JHHC:9694 2 imposed punishment; whereas in the criminal case, he has been acquitted. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the charge in both the cases is same and similar and when he has been acquitted in the criminal case, there is no justification of the impugned order of punishment dated 23rd June, 2015. 5. Learned counsel further contended that even the petitioner remained suspended till the age of his retirement and his suspension was never revoked and there is no order to that effect. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is dated 23rd June, 2015 and after accepting the entire order, as an afterthought, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of June, 2015 in December, 2024 i.e., after a lapse of almost 10 years; as such, the same may be dismissed in limine. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, it appears that the documentary evidences and the testimonies of the witnesses led during inquiry have clearly proved the charge. As a matter of fact, the fact reveals that when there was a surprise visit of ASPOs it was found that there is less cash and the petitioner has defrauded the department by misappropriating the cash as well as R.D. Accounts/S.B. Accounts. 8. As a matter of fact, he has also accepted the charge by his written statement dated 13.09.2002. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the 2026:JHHC:9694 3 case and after going through the impugned order, I don’t find any error in the impugned order of punishment, inasmuch as, neither there is any procedural irregularity, nor there is any perversity. 10. It goes without saying that the contention of the petitioner that for same and similar charge, criminal case was also initiated in which he has been acquitted, does not appeal to this Court for the reason that on the one hand no charge-sheet has been annexed with this writ petition and on the other hand, there is a specific statement in the order of punishment that “criminal and departmental proceeding are based on similar ground is not correct.” 11. Having regard to the above, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 12. However, so far as the suspension period is concerned, if the petitioner approaches the appropriate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order with regard to an order of full salary of suspension period, appropriate order may be passed, in view of Fundamental Rule 54-B(5) and Fundamental Rule 54-B(7) within a further period of 12 weeks. 13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 07, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20/04/2026