Raviranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

2025:JHHC:33952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 276 of 2019

--

Raviranjan aged about 26 years, son of Madhusudan Chaturvedi, resident of Village- Khewan Bigha, P.O.-Daha Bigha, P.S.-Hilsa, District- Nalanda-801302, at present 467 Saubhagya Sharma Path, B.V. College, Rukanpura, Patna14, Bihar ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

The Director General of Police Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶8

The Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag, P.O. + P.S.Hazaribag, District-Hazaribagh

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

--

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

--

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Ritu Kumar, Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Amrit Anunay, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III

¶14

¶15

19/06.11.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:

¶17

For a direction upon the respondents for quashing the letter of Jharkhand Police Academy order No. 794/2018 as Annexure 2 and to give permission to continue the training period on their post petitioner was in training period in lieu of Jharkhand Police Academy order No. 794/2010 issued by Director Jharkhand Police Academy, Hazaribag dated 26.12.2018 Memo no. 4292/ Training, Director Jharkhand Police Academy, Hazaribag dated 27.12.2018 because of by this letter Director Jharkhand Police Academy, Training Hazaribag has dismissed the petitioner from their post as SubInspector of police in his training period.

¶18

3. The brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by Jharkhand Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination-2017, which was pursuant to Advertisement no. 05/2017 vide Memo No. 1451 dated 20.07.2018 and

¶19

1

¶20

2025:JHHC:33952

¶21

pursuant thereto; he joined before Jharkhand Police Academy, Hazaribag on 06.08.2018 for getting training.

¶22

4. The case of the petitioner is that all of a sudden on 27.12.2018, a letter has been issued to the Petitioner by the Inspector of his Training Centre that he has been dismissed from his service.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was having no knowledge regarding the allegation alleged upon him which was indicated in the impugned order.

¶24

He further submits that no show-cause has been issued and the Petitioner was getting training sincerely. He further submits that since the Petitioner was in training and as per Memo no. 1451/P dated 20.07.2018, in Clause (2) it has been mentioned that till the training is completed, the service is not confirmed and the same is temporary and if any misconduct happens during the said period; then, show-cause notice is not required and as per the Police Manual Rule 668 ( d ) any person under training can be dismissed.

¶25

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the case including the impugned order.

¶26

7. From the impugned order, it appears that the order of termination has been given on the basis of one complaint made by one Havildar, Dyal Kumar Modi.

¶27

From bare perusal of first ten lines of the impugned order, it transpires that the allegation reflects the reference of Durga Puja which was between 08.10.2018 to 19.10.2018 at the relevant year, and in the subsequent sentence also, there is a reference of an incidence of Patna which is admittedly occurred on 02.11.2018; thus, the complaint itself indicates that there is discrepancy and the said discrepancy; prima facie , appears to be tented and must have been given with bias and this Court is having no

¶28

2

¶29

2025:JHHC:33952

¶30

hesitation in holding that the complainant, Havildar, Dyal Kumar Modi has made a complaint with some ulterior motive. For brevity, the 1^st ten lines is extracted herein

¶31

below:

¶32

“ 794 / 2018 इ 21.12.2018 20.12.2018 19.00 उ ‘ ई’ 21.12.2018 ‘ ई’ ०- 2 ० ० ० , ०- 52 उ ० ० उ औ उ उ औ , ई . . उ इ ( ), , , उ ० ० ० उ " “- ...................”

¶33

8. The above observation is due the chronology of events reported in complaint, inasmuch as, the complaint was made on 20.12.2018. Durga Puja, in that relevant year was from 10^th October, 2025 to 19^th October,2025 and after 10 days; the incident took place at Patna on 2^nd November, 2025. Thus, there is reference of a subsequent event of Patna in the Complaint Petition; which is not possible.

¶34

9. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.¹ , has held that any order which will have far reaching effect must be followed with the principles of natural justice. For brevity, Paras- 8 and 9 are extracted hereinbelow:

¶35

“8. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person.

¶36

1 (1993) 3 SCC 259

¶37

3

¶38

2025:JHHC:33952

¶39

9. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272, 308-F] the Constitution Bench held that ‘civil consequences’ covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and nonpecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edn., page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country … they include … rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action…. In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] this Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice.”

¶40

10. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances, the order of termination dated 26/27.12.2008 as contained in Memo no. 4292, is hereby, quashed and set aside and the instant application is allowed.

¶41

The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner forthwith, but in any case not beyond the period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. However, they would be at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner by following the principal of natural justice, if so advised.

¶42

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶43

6^th November, 2025 Jk Uploaded on 24/11 /2025

¶44

4

Raviranjan v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raviranjan v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jharkhand State Civil Courts Stenographers Associations through Its Secretary Nagendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Goyenka Charitable Trust through Its Authorized Signatory Krishna Mohan Chowbey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, through Santoush Kadam, Vs Jay Prakash Singh

Smt Manju Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Avinash Chandra Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gouri Nath Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand