Dismissed

Basudeo Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Sept 2020WPC/5174/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two interconnected writ petitions challenging dismissal orders from the Jharkhand Armed Police and District Police. Since the petitioner's departmental appeals were pending, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders but directed the appellate authority to decide them within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to dispose of pending departmental appeals within six months; the writ petitions were disposed of without interference in the impugned orders.

Basudeo Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.2974 of 2012

Basudeo Ram

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand, through Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶9

Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶10

Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi Jharkhand, Sector II, Dhurwa Ranchi.

¶11

D.I.G. Hazaribagh

¶12

Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh.

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

With

¶15

W.P.(S) No.5174 of 2010

Basudeo Ram

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶21

2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶22

3. The Commandant JAP-6, Jamshedpur

¶23

… … Respondents

¶24

¶25

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶26

¶27

For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Res.State : Mr. Anish Mishra, A.C to G.A.-I

¶28

11/08.09.2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties through

¶29

V.C.

¶30

2. Since both these writ applications are

¶31

interconnected as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order

¶32

¶33

3. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2974 of 2012 has been preferred by the petitioner for following relief:-

¶34

(i) For setting aside the Order dated 28.10.2009 vide Departmental Proceeding No.43 of 2009 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh by which the respondent authority dismissed the petitioner from the service without considering the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his resignation on 05.05.2008 before the Commandant JAP 6, Jamshedpur.

¶35

(ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction commanding upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service after setting aside the dismissal order dated 28.10.2009.

¶36

4. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5174 of 2010 has been preferred by the petitioner for following relief:-

¶37

(i) For setting aside the Order dated 24.01.2009 vide Departmental Proceeding No.53 of 2008 passed by Commandant JAP-6, Jamshedpur by which the respondent authority dismissed the petitioner from service without considering the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his resignation on 05.05.2008. (ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction commanding upon the respondent

¶38

¶39

to accept resignation of the petitioner after setting aside the dismissal order dated 24.01.2009.

¶40

5. Brief facts as stated in the writ application are that the petitioner was appointed as constable in the Jharkhand Armed Police-6 at Jamshedpur on 12.04.2006. While he was posted at Jamshedpur he proceeded on leave for 12 days with effect from 04.03.2008. Just after one day, he received an appointment letter being a successful candidate for the post of constable in the District Police, Hazaribagh (Annexure-1). Subsequently, after gaining the knowledge that the petitioner ought to have submitted his resignation in JAP-6 prior to joining the District Police, Hazaribagh, he submitted his first resignation letter before the Commandant JAP-6 on 05.05.2008 (Annexure-2). Between 13.05.2008 to 13.08.2008, the petitioner made several representations addressing to the Commandant, JAP-06 for acceptance of his resignation. However, ultimately on 24.01.2009, petitioner has been dismissed from service in an ex-parte manner without providing any opportunity to defend himself. Thereafter, the petitioner was also dismissed from service from the District Police, Hazaribagh on 28.10.2009, in an ex-parte manner without providing any opportunity to defend him.

¶41

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order in both these writ applications are illegal, arbitrary and have been passed without following

¶42

¶43

the principle of natural justice; as such, the same should be quashed and set aside. He further contended that though the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent no.2, but the same has not been disposed of till date.

¶44

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that in none of the resignation letters, he has stated about his appointment in District Police, Hazaribagh. He further submits that since there is provision of appeal and the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of at the time of filing these writ applications as such, both these writ applications should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶45

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that appeals filed by the petitioner are pending before the concerned respondent no.2. As such, without interfering with the impugned orders, the respondent no.2 is directed to look into the matter and dispose of both the appeals filed against the order dated 28.10.2009 pursuant to Departmental Proceeding No.43 of 2009 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and order dated 24.01.2009 pursuant to Departmental Proceeding No.53 of 2008 passed by Commandant JAP-6, Jamshedpur. The respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to ask the petitioner for sending the copy of the appeals because the matter relates

¶46

¶47

to 2010. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be concluded within Six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the appeals of the petitioner are decided against him; he shall be at liberty to move in accordance with law and rules of Police manual.

¶48

9. With the aforesaid directions, both these writ applications are hereby disposed of.

¶49

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶50

Fahim /-

Basudeo Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudeo Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sandeep Mitra Vs Dhanbad Municipal Corporation through Its Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Tuhina Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Others

Mritunjay Singh And Ors. Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Purnima Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pramod Kumar Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.