Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9984 (JHR)

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/3882/2025 · 2026-04-27

Deepak Roshan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:12367 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 3882 of 2025 ---- Pramod Kumar Das, aged about 34 years, Son of Sri Shiv Kumar Das, Resident of Rasulpur Dahla, P.O& P.S Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O& P.S Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, at Collectoriat Building P.O& P.S Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand 4. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, at Collectoriat Building P.O& P.S Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand 5. Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Sahibganj at Collectoriat Building P.O& P.S Sahibganj, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to AAG-II --- 07/ Dated: 27.04.2026 1. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s). i. For quashing of the order contained in Memo no.-217 dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure-2) issued by respondent no.-5, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner as a driver has been terminated without following any process of law in anticipation of approval of Board. ii. For further direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioner in his service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. iii. For holding and declaring that as the termination of the services of petitioner is bad in law, it has got no impact on consideration of his claim for regularization of his services in compliance of order dated 15.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4907 of 2022. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver after following due process of law in year 2010 in the office of District Board, Sahibganj and ( 2026:JHHC:12367 ) 2 accordingly joined his services and was doing his services diligently. He has been given several letters of appreciation by the respondent authorities. 3. The petitioner after informing, left from Hazaribagh to look after his wife who was admitted in Hospital in Bhagalpur on 10.06.2025. On the very next date i.e. on 11.06.2025 an office order contained in memo no. 217 dated 11.06.2025 was issued; whereby the petitioner was removed from his services as a driver in the office of District Board, Sahibganj. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent authorities by making representation dated 17.06.2025 explaining all the facts with supporting documents with a request to reinstate him in his services. The petitioner once again approached the respondent authorities by making representation dated 21.06.2025. 4. The petitioner has rendered more than 14 years of services and this Court also has directed the respondents to consider his case for regularization of his services, but instead of complying the order of this Court, his services were terminated. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been discharged from service without any opportunity of hearing. From order dated 18.08.2025 passed in this case, it appears that the respondents were directed to seek instructions and intimate the Court as to whether before passing the impugned order dated 11.06.2025, the respondents have given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not. 6. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents which indicates that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. On this score alone, the instant application needs to be allowed. ( 2026:JHHC:12367 ) 3 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 is quashed and set aside. 8. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and if they chooses to proceed against the petitioner, they should proceed strictly in accordance with law, following principles of natural justice and rules and regulations applicable in the case of petitioner. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/- Dated: 27.04.2026