2026:JHHC:11560 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 4981 of 2023 ---------- Kishun Oraon @ Kishnu Oraon, aged about 43 years, S/o. Gumon Oraon, R/o. Village Ragai, P.O. Baruhatu, P.S. Bundu, Dist. Ranchi. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General of Police, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Dy. Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi having office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 4. Superintendent of Police, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Gumla. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II ---------- 10/ 20.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the order of dismissal dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure-3) passed by the 4th respondent and the appellate order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure-17), whereby the concerned respondent has affirmed the order of punishment. 3. Petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2086 of 2017, wherein he has assailed the order of termination dated 13.01.2009; appellate order dated 21.06.2010 sustaining the termination; and also, the order dated 20.03.2017, passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the order of termination was sustained by all the authorities. 4. The said writ application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the order passed by the Writ Court in L.P.A. No. 897 of 2019, which was heard and allowed vide order dated 24.11.2022 by holding 2026:JHHC:11560 2 as under: “23. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact in the light of this aspect of the matter, rather, has gone into the procedure followed in imposing punishment. But even if the procedure has been followed by the disciplinary authority, the propriety demands that the disciplinary authority is to do justice even in imposing punishment if the disciplinary authority is dealing with the case of the misconduct against the different delinquent employees. 24. Therefore, according to our considered view, the learned Single Judge, since, has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter as per the discussion made hereinabove above by strictly applying the principle of parity in imposing punishment and as such, the order impugned requires interference. 25. Accordingly, the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2086 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. 26. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 27. This Court conscious with the legal position that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot impose punishment upon the delinquent employee or even reduce it, rather, it is the domain of the disciplinary authority, therefore, the matter is required to be considered afresh by the respondents-authorities.” Emphasis Supplied 5. Thereafter, again the impugned order has been passed which is at Annexure-17 and relevant portion of the impugned order needs to be extracted for the reason that the Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction by commenting upon the order passed by the Division Bench. For brevity, the concluding part of the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 is extracted herein below: “अतः गठित समितत द्वारा िाननीय न्यायालय से एल०पी०ए० सं०- 897/2019 किसुन उरॉव उर्फ किष्नू उरॉव बनाि झारखण्ड राज्य एवं अन्य िें पाररत न्यायादेश िे अनुपालन िें पूनसफिी्ቌा िे ्ቅि िें पूवफ पाररत आदेश िें किसी भी ्ቚिार िा िोई भी बदलाव िरने िी आवश्यिता ्ቚतीत नह ं होती है।” 6. After going through the impugned order and also the order passed by the Division Bench which has been extracted hereinabove, it clearly transpires that the Division Bench of this Court after considering each and every aspect of the 2026:JHHC:11560 3 matter has allowed the Appeal of the petitioner by holding that since this Court cannot reduce the punishment, therefore, the respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order. The purport of para-27 of the order was very clear that the quantum of punishment was not commensurate with the charge. 7. At this stage it is also relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2025. On that day, after hearing the parties, since the Court noticed that for graver charge in the same cause of action, his co-employees have been given lesser punishment but the petitioner having lesser charges, has been dismissed from service, therefore, this Court on 15.07.2025, passed the following orders: “The grievance of the Petitioner is that for a minor charge he has been dismissed, but for the graver charge, his co-employees have been given different lessor punishment. On 25th June, 2025, learned counsel for the Respondents was directed to seek instruction on the quantum of punishment, but no clear cut reply has been given by him. Accordingly, the Respondent no. 4 shall appear In Person through Video Conferencing in order to demonstrate before this Court as to why a lessor punishment has been given to those police personnel, who have detained Binod Oraon and the allegation against this Petitioner is only about the wrong information. It is a matter of fact, those police personnel should also have enquired into the matter, which the Disciplinary Authority has failed to appreciate. List this case on 21.07.2025 at 12:15 p.m.” 8. On the next date on 28.07.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla was present through V.C. and the matter was heard. However, till date the earlier order is not revisited. It is true that there was no specific order on 28.07.2025 that the concerned was directed to revisit with the order but the purport of the previous order was to that extent. 9. Be that as it may, when the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held after allowing the Appeal of the 2026:JHHC:11560 4 petitioner that the Court cannot reduce punishment; rather, it is the domain of the Disciplinary Authority, it is presumed that the Disciplinary Authority should have passed an order of punishment, which is of course not of termination. However, the same punishment has been passed by the respondents by issuing a fresh impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order of dismissal dated 13.01.2009 and the appellate order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure- 17); are hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to abide by the observations made in LPA No. 897 of 2019, by passing a fresh order of lesser punishment. However, it is categorically directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and thereafter, the respondents would pass a fresh order of punishment keeping each and every observation made in LPA No. 897 of 2019, coupled with the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in this case. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 20th April, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 04.05.2026