2026:JHHC:11163 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 22 of 2023 Santosh Ram, aged about 29 years, son of late Suraj Bali Ram, resident of village Baraon, P.O. Baraon, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas (Bihar). ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Union of India 2. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi Range, having its office at Tiril Ashram, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi Range, having its office at Tiril Ashram, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 4. Commandant, CRPF, Jashpurnagar, P.O. and P.S. Jashpur, District Jashpur(Chhattisgarh). ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate -------- Order No. 10 /Dated: 9th April 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1(A) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s) for quashing up of the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the I.G., Ranchi Range, C.R.P.F. whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner as against the order of punishment has been upheld, (as contained in Annexure- 4 to this writ application). (B) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or of order (s) for quashing up of the order dated 24.05.2022 by which the appeal against the order of punishment dated 20.01.2022 has been dismissed, (as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ application). (C) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction (s) and/or order(s) for quashing up of the order dated 20.01.2022 by which the punishment of dismissal has been inflicted upon the present petitioner, (as contained in Annexure-2 to this writ application). (D) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s) for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of dismissal on the post from which he was dismissed. (E) For any other appropriate relief (s) to which the petitioner may be found entitled in law and equity.” 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a Constable in the CRPF 81 2026:JHHC:11163 2 Battalion bearing Force NO. 125020691. It is stated that the petitioner was granted five days casual leave from 19.01.2019 to 24.01.2019. When the petitioner did not report on duty after completion of his sanctioned leave, the respondent-Department sent letter on 05.02.2019 and 21.02.2019 to the petitioner with a direction to report back to duty. On 19.03.2020, the petitioner reported to duty after 419 days of OSL. On 18.09.2020, after enquiry, punishment of removal was granted to the petitioner. On 26.03.2021, due to technical infirmity in disciplinary proceeding order of removal was quashed by the appellate authority with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry against the petitioner from the stage of framing of charges. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated with effect from 15.04.2021 but no financial benefit was given for the period spent on duty. On 22.06.2021, a fresh memo of charges was served to the petitioner and the enquiry officer handed over the report to the petitioner and directed him to submit his representation within three days against the finding of presenting officer. The petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry and admitted to the charge of misconduct. On 20.01.2022, the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner was passed. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were also rejected. Hence, this writ application. 3. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was absent only for 419 days but before dismissing the petitioner from service, the respondents should have seen the compelling circumstances of the petitioner that he has lost two sons and also got depressed during that period; as such, some sympathy should have been given to the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that there is no procedural irregularity. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Union of India that the aforesaid argument of the petitioner with respect to death of his child and taking sympathetic view is not reflected in the impugned 2026:JHHC:11163 3 order. In other words, the petitioner has not raised all those points. The petitioner’s point was that he was mentally ill, however, he never approached to the CRPF doctor. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order of dismissal from service does not suffer from procedural irregularity. Further, the argument of the petitioner with respect to death of his child was never raised by him before the enquiry Officer and/or before the disciplinary authority; rather petitioner’s point was that he was mentally ill, however, he never approached to the CRPF doctor. Further, it appears that the concerned respondent/disciplinary authority has considered each and every aspect of the petitioner. The law with regard to judicial review is very clear that the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and is having a limited scope of interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 7. Pending I. As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 9th April 2026 Amit Uploaded on 04/05 /2026