( 2026:JHHC:12368 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 2411 of 2026 ---- Amit Kumar Thakur, aged about 42 years, S/o Krityanand Thakur, R/o 48, Mahishi, Ward No. 15, P.O-Mahishi, P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa, Bihar- 852216, Presently residing at Kailash Nagar, Railway Colony, P.O+ P.S. Pakur, District Pakur, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O+P.S-Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O+P.S District- Dumka, Jharkhand 3. The Director, Secondary Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O+PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Regional Joint Director of Education, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O+P.S+District Dumka, Jharkhand 5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O+P.S+District Pakur, Jharkhand 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj, P.O+P.S +District Pakur, Jharkhand 7. The District Education Officer, New Collectorate Campus, Vikas Bhawan, Block-B 2nd Floor, Shaharkol, P.O+P.S +District Pakur, Jharkhand-816107 .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I --- 06/ Dated: 27.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure-6), as well as appellate order dated 28.08.2025, passed against the petitioner sustaining the punishment. The petitioner has also preferred this application for consequential benefits. ( 2026:JHHC:12368 ) 2 3. The facts relating to appointment and others are mentioned in the pleadings and in order to decide the list, the facts are not reiterated what has been stated in the pleadings. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in a nut-shell is that principle of natural justice and the settled proposition of law was not followed; neither the inquiry report has been served to the petitioner; nor the right to represent against the inquiry report i.e. reply to second show-cause, has not been given to the petitioner, as such the impugned order suffers from infirmity. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the celebrated judgment referred in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors.1. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that there is nothing on record to suggest that show- cause was given asking for a reply. 7. Having regard to the admitted position, interest of justice would be sufficed by remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 8. The concerned respondent/disciplinary authority is directed to serve second show-cause notice to the petitioner along with the Enquiry report, asking for a reply and thereafter, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, and as per the law laid down in the above referred case. 9. It goes without saying, that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, and this case has been decided only on the question of procedural lapses. 10. Accordingly, this writ application stands partly allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/- Dated: 27.04.2026 1 (1993)4 SCC 727