2026:JHHC:10921 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4000 of 2025 …… Binod Ram, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Anandi Ram, resident of Bijain, Bahera P.O. and P.S. Piparwar, District- Chatra. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. Central Coalfields Limited, through Chairman-cum- Managing Director having its office at Darbangha House, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Director (Personnel), M/s Central Coalfields Darbangha House, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3.General Manager, M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbangha House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 4. Project Officer, Amrapali Project, CCL Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Tandwa, District-Chatra. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Adv Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv …… 06/16.04.2026 From record, it appears that the petitioner was dismissed from service in a regular departmental proceeding for misconduct under Clause-26.1, 26.22, 26.23 and 26.36 of the certified standing orders. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(s) No. 766 of 2023, which was disposed of by the Co- Ordinate Bench vide its order dated 12.11.2024; wherein the petitioner was granted liberty to move an appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. 2026:JHHC:10921 2 2. The record further reveals that no any appeal was filed by the petitioner; rather he has accepted the said order, inasmuch as, he never approached the Industrial Tribunal. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge by the Court of competent jurisdiction for which the departmental proceeding was initiated and he was found guilty; the petitioner filed representation which is at Annexure-15 and 15/A. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only on the issue that, since after acquittal he has represented the concerned authorities by virtue of representation dated 20.03.2025; as such the respondent, be directed to take a decision in the matter. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that though the charge in criminal case and civil proceeding is entirely different and it was only one of the charges for which criminal case was initiated, but if the petitioner so chooses, he may approach the concerned respondent to get an order on his representation. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly the order passed by 2026:JHHC:10921 3 the writ Court in the earlier round of litigation has attained finality, inasmuch as, the petitioner has neither challenged the said order before the appellate Court; nor preferred any application under Industrial Disputes Act. However, on the change circumstances since he has represented before the concerned respondent, interest of justice would be sufficed by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 4th respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. The 4th respondent shall consider the petitioner’s case in light of the changed circumstances, particularly the fact of his acquittal in the criminal proceeding. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J) 16.04.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 23.04.2026