Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9908 (JHR)

SHAMBHU KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/4341/2022 · 2026-01-27

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:1965 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4341 of 2022 ------ Shambhu Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Badri Prasad Yadav, Resident of Vill-Bhalni, PO-Gangapur, PS-Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura, Bihar. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Headquarters, HEC, PO & PS- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Paragana Region, Dumka, PO & PS-Dumka, Dist-Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar, Dist- Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG ------ 09/ 27th January, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding but without a proper, fair departmental enquiry where no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to defend himself. 3. After hearing the parties at length, I find that the petitioner is an accused in Vigilance Case No.04/2020 instituted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the allegation that the petitioner was caught red handed by the Vigilance Department. 4. The petitioner was suspended and thereafter, a departmental charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 01.10.2020. Be it noted that prior to that on 04.06.2020 he was taken in custody and he was languishing in judicial custody till he was released on bail on 05.08.2021. 2026:JHHC:1965 2 5. The charge-sheet was issued on 01.10.2020 when the petitioner was in custody and the entire enquiry was conducted during the period in which he was in custody as the enquiry report was submitted on 28.02.2021. The petitioner in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition has categorically stated that he was in judicial custody from 04.06.2020 till 25.07.2021 and he was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which were examined in the departmental proceeding. It is his specific pleading that in violation of the principle of natural justice, the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted. 6. This paragraph 10 of the writ petition has been countered by the respondents in Paragraph 11 of their counter- affidavit. The respondents have only made a vague submission only stating that the principal of natural justice has been followed. 7. From the facts, I find that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted when the petitioner was in custody. The enquiry report also does not suggest that the petitioner cross- examined any of the witnesses. It is not the case of the respondents that the enquiry was conducted in the Jail Campus where the petitioner was lodged when he was in custody. This clearly indicates that the entire departmental enquiry was conducted behind back of the petitioner without giving him appropriate opportunity to defend himself. Nothing prevented the respondents to conduct the departmental proceeding in this matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Considering the above, the entire enquiry proceeding which is against the principal of natural justice is hereby quashed including the report. Consequently, order of punishment dated 11.10.2021 and the Appellate order 10.05.2022 are also quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondents to conduct the enquiry de novo after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the fresh enquiry on the same charge which was issued to the petitioner on 01.10.2020. The charge-sheet be re-furnished to the petitioner for giving an appropriate reply and the respondents will continue proceeding 2026:JHHC:1965 3 from that stage. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27.01.2026 S.K.D., cp2 Uploaded on 30.01.2026