2026:JHHC:11511 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 393 of 2024 --------- Samir Mudi, son of late Amulya Mudi, aged about 50 years, resident of Village Phusro Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Phusro, Bermo District Bokaro (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. 3. The Additional Collector (Establishment), Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. 4. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rinku Bhakat, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV --------- 05/Dated:-20.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: i) For quashing of Memo No.600 dated 14.12.2023 [Annexure-3] issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whereby the application of petitioner has been rejected to reinstate in service in the light of judgement dated 16.10.2020 [Annexure-1] passed in WP(S) No.6436/2010 without application of mind, the order of dismissal has already been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble High Court therefore the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro should have passed a fresh order on application of petitioner in departmental proceeding after following the procedure of the departmental the proceeding, whereas simply Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro rejected the application of the petitioner which is against the principle of departmental proceeding and therefore the same liable to be set aside. ii) For direction upon the respondents to pay all consequential benefits to petitioner after setting aside the Memo No.600 dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure- 3) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. iii) For direction upon the Respondent No.2 to make payment of all the salary to the petitioner for the period on and from 24.12.2006 till today which has not been paid to him after deduction of the suspension allowance amount which has been paid to him within this period. iv) For direction upon Respondent No.2 to recall the order of dismissal of service of petitioner and pass a fresh order to allow the petitioner to join in service in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.6436 of 2010, which was allowed and a liberty was 2026:JHHC:11511 2 given to the respondents to pass a fresh order after following principles of natural justice. For brevity, paras-3 to 6 are extracted hereinbelow: “3. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the Inquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioners not proved, however, the disciplinary authority without issuing any show cause notice to the delinquent employees indicating the grounds on which the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding, passed the impugned order of dismissal. This issue has already been decided and the matter is squarely covered by the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6064 of 2010, wherein the same impugned order dated 28.9.2010 was quashed with respect to the petitioners of the said writ application as such, the instant application may be allowed in the line of that judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State does not oppose the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. For proper appreciation of the instant case, Para 14 and 17 of the order dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6064 of 2010 is quoted herein below. “14. As a matter of fact now it is well settled that once the Inquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioners not proved, it will be open to the Disciplinary Authorities to issue show cause notice to the delinquent employee indicating the grounds on which the Disciplinary Authority decided to disagree with the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding. However, it was not open to the Respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegation contained in the charge memo. It was open to the disciplinary authority to pass order of punishment after complying with the requirements of the principle of natural justice. However, it is not open to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter that too at the back of the delinquent employee. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judicial pronouncement referred to herein above, the instant writ application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Memo Nos. 757, 753 & 755 dated 28.09.2010 (Annexure-8 series), are hereby, quashed and set aside. It would be open to the Respondents to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law after following principles of natural justice.” 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the settled position of law, the instant application is also allowed in the light of the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6064 of 2010 and impugned orders as contained in Memo Nos. 754, 756, 758 & 752 dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure-7 Series), are hereby, quashed and set aside. It would be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after following principles of natural justice.” 4. Thereafter, though the petitioner appeared before the respondents pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court, but unfortunately, this time also, neither the second show-cause notice was given; nor a notice disagreeing with the finding of inquiry officer was given to the petitioner. In other words, the two- stage notice in case of disagreement has not been given. 2026:JHHC:11511 3 5. At this stage, it is once again clarified that in the case of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority with the finding of Inquiry Officer, there shall be two stages of issuing show-cause Noice; firstly, a notice giving reasons of disagreement; and secondly, after getting the reply of 1st stage Notice; 2nd Show- Cause is to be given; which is missing in the instant case. 6. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner personally appeared before the respondents; therefore, it was deemed that notice was given, but unfortunately, that does not satisfy the mandate of law and the respondents have committed the same error again. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion; the impugned order dated Memo No.600 dated 14.12.2023 [Annexure- 3], is hereby, quashed and set aside. Since, the respondents have committed the same mistake, even after remand, therefore remitting the case again to cure the irregularity would certainly harass the petitioner again for the 3rd time when the Inquiry officer has already found the charges as not proved. As such, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to give any further chance to the Respondents. 8. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The Petitioner would also be entitled for all consequential benefits which the Respondents shall pay within a further period of 8 weeks. 2026:JHHC:11511 4 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 20, 2026 vikas/- AFR/NAFR uploaded 05/05/2026