Ramanuj Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:34173

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

C.M.P No.777 of 2023

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶6

The Inspector General of Police South Chotanagpur Division, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶7

The Superintendent of Police- Singhbhum West, Chaibasa having office at Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa & District West Singhbhum. .… Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ramanuj Kumar Verma, s/o Late Balram Prasad, R/o Sahdeo Nagar, Hafsi Camp, P.O. Hehal, P.S.Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. ..... Respondent

¶10

With

¶11

Cont. Case (CVL) No.271 of 2022

¶12

Ramanuj Kumar Verma, aged about 51 years s/o Late Balram Prasad, R/o Sahdeo Nagar, Hafsi Camp, P.O. Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jhjarkhand.

¶13

.… Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Jharkhand.

¶16

Shri Neeraj Sinha, Son of not known to the petitioner, Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Police Headquarter, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶17

Shri A. K. Jha, Son of not known to the petitioner, Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Division, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶18

Shri Ashutosh Shekhar, Son of not known to the petitioner, Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District Chaibasa. ..... Opposite Parties

¶19

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶21

¶22

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II (In CMP) : Mr. D.K.Dubey, Adv. (In Cont.) For the Respondent : Mr. D.K.Dubey, Adv. (In CMP) : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II (In Cont.)

¶23

¶24

2025:JHHC:34173

¶25

¶26

11/Dated: 11.11.2025

¶27

These applications are being heard together as both are interconnected and disposed of by this common order.

¶28

2. The application being C.M.P. No. 777 of 2023 has been preferred by the Petitioner-State for modification of 3^rd sub-paragraph of Para-9; whereby a liberty was given to the department to proceed with the fresh inquiry, but within a stipulated period of four months. For brevity, relevant para of Para-9 of the order dated 5/10/21 is extracted herein-below.

¶29

“It goes without saying that, since the matter is very old, as such if the department chooses to proceed with fresh enquiry; the same shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.”

¶30

3. During course of proceeding, original records were called for and after verifying the original records of the case, it appears that on 7/12/21 itself, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the fresh proceeding. Thereafter, on 11/1/22, a reminder was also given to file the reply to the show-cause. On 16th January 2022, the writ petitioner asked for few documents.

¶31

4. On 25-1-2022, charge sheet was framed and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Thereafter, first hearing notice was issued on 28-1-2022 and hearing was conducted on 10.02.2022.

¶32

5. In the meantime, the stipulated period for disposal of the fresh proceeding lapsed on 04.02.2022.

¶33

¶34

2025:JHHC:34173

¶35

However, this Court, after going through the original records, does not have any hesitation to hold that the original respondents were eager to proceed with the inquiry. However, due to some reason or the other; meaning thereby to say, due to latches on both the parties, the fresh order by the department could not be passed within the stipulated period of four months.

¶36

6. As aforesaid, though fresh proceeding was not completed within a stipulated period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the writ court’s order, but certainly the department were proceeding and finally passed a fresh impugned order.

¶37

7. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the action taken by the respondents, interest of justice would be sufficed by modifying the 3^rd sub-para of paragraph-9 by waiving the ceiling of four months in passing the order.

¶38

Accordingly, the 3^rd sub-para of paragraph-9 is modified to the extent that the timeline of four months given in the said paragraph is modified to the extent that the fresh enquiry, if initiated, shall be concluded as early as possible.

¶39

8. Since the fresh order has already been passed by the original respondents/State; as such, the writ petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same on merits, if so advised.

¶40

8. With the aforesaid modification in paragraph9 of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.6632 of 2011 , the C.M.P. No. 777 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶41

9. So far as contempt petition is concerned; since a fresh order has been passed against writ

¶42

¶43