Quashed

Ramakant Ram v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2021WPC/7495/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed a non-speaking appellate order dismissing a departmental appeal against demotion. The court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order within four months. No specific constitutional articles or procedural statutes were cited in the operative reasoning.

What did the court decide?

The impugned appellate order dated 29.9.2011 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order within four months.

Ramakant Ram Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7495 of 2011

¶2

¶3

Ramakant Ram ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶7

The Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Range, Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro-cum-Conducting Officer of the Departmental Enquiry

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶11

….. Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahni, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms.Piyushita Meha Tudu, Advocate

¶15

16/08.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

¶16

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of punishment as contained in Memo No.390 dated 31.3.2011 whereby the petitioner has been demoted from the post of Inspector of Police to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for two years and also for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 625 dated 29.9.2011, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the order of punishment has been dismissed.

¶17

3. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in spite of other grounds raised in the instant application; he confines his prayer only for quashing the appellate order for the sole reason that it is completely non speaking order. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has quoted the grounds taken by this petitioner and thereby simply in two lines he has dismissed the appeal without giving any finding on the grounds taken by the petitioner.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sahani submits that the matter may be remitted back to the Appellate Authority directing him to pass a fresh order by giving

¶19

-2-

¶20

reasons for sustaining the order of punishment considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. 4. Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, learned counsel for the respondent State supports the impugned orders and submits that there is no procedural irregularity in these orders and the allegation against this petitioner is very grave, which has been proved by the Inquiry Officer.

¶21

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents, especially the order dated 29.9.2011, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed; it clearly transpires that the Appellate Authority has quoted the grounds taken by the petitioner but sustained the order of punishment by only stating therein that the petitioner has not taken any new ground or reason so as to interfere with the order of punishment.

¶22

6. In this view of the matter, I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to remit the case back to the Appellate Authority.

¶23

Consequently, the impugned order in appeal as contained in Memo No. 625 dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Respondent No.4 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶24

The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration the grounds taken by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶25

7. In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶26

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶27

sm/

Ramakant Ram v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Ram v. State of Jharkhand

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

Sri Dr.Naresh Prasad Vs Birsa Agricultural University

Somnath Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Paras Singh Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited And O

Narendra Jha and Anr. Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board

Surendra Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sabitri Das Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.