Nagendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 638 of 2025

Nagendra Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of Sri Siddeshwar Prasad Singh, R/o: 322B, New Colony Tungri, P.O.+ P.S. Chaibasa, Dist: East Singhbhum, Jharkhand …. ... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Hon’ble “The Standing Appeal Committee” of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi through Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi.

¶6

The Judgeship of West Singhbhum through Registrar, Civil Court, W. Singhbhum, P.O. + P.S. Chaibasa, Dist: West Singhbhum;

¶7

The Office of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate; Porahat, P.O. + P.S. Porahat, Dist- West Singhbhum. … ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

--------For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.J.F. Toppo, G.A. –V Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V -------- Reserved on: 17.02.2025 Pronounced on: 11/ 03 /2025

¶11

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)

¶12

1) The petitioner was initially appointed as a stenographer in the judgeship of West Singhbhum and later promoted to Grade-I post on 17.8.2011 and was working as Office Assistant. He was allocated the cases relating to work at police stations and another police station called Tebo Police Station was allocated to one Anit Chandra Kumar on 8.8.2022.

¶13

-1 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 638 of 2025

¶14

2) A complaint was filed on 18.9.2023 by one Sanjeev Kumar, S.I. of Police Station,Tebo, West Singhbhum, alleging that the petitioner and the said Anit Chandra Kumar, who were working as office clerks of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat had demanded money from him in lieu of the work done by them on 5.9.2023.

¶15

3) The charge memo was issued by the 3^rd respondent alleging that petitioner had demanded money from police officials for each and every official work done by him and he also misbehaved with the persons who did not give him money. Details were mentioned in the charge memo. It was also alleged that he was guilty of willful insubordination and was habitually negligent while working as office clerk.

¶16

4) Inquiry Officer was appointed by the 3^rd respondent against both the petitioner and Sri Anit Chandra Kumar.

¶17

5) Witnesses were examined in the inquiry and documents were also marked in the inquiry.

¶18

6) The complainant was also examined in the inquiry as E.W. 2. The complainant produced a Pen Drive containing conversation between the petitioner and the complainant.

¶19

7) After considering the evidence on record and the contents of the

¶20

Pen Drive, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner were proved.

¶21

8) The Inquiry Report was submitted on 6.4.2024 by the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged. Copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner.

¶22

-2 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 638 of 2025

¶23

9) The second show cause was issued to the petitioner on 10.4.2024 along with copy of the Inquiry Report with direction to submit his reply within 15 days.

¶24

10) The petitioner submitted a reply on 18.4.2024 tendering unconditional apology and promising to work well in future with honesty, dedication and fair conduct.

¶25

11) After considering the same, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner under Rule 14 (ix) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 .

¶26

12) Petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 20 of the Jharkhand Civil Courts Officers and Staffs (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer & Other Services Conditions) Rules, 2018 to the Standing Appeal Committee at the High Court but the said appeal was also rejected on 3.12.2024.

¶27

13) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse because proof beyond reasonable doubt was not available and the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. He also contended that there was no finding with respect to charges I, III, IV and VI and the Inquiry Officer had held him guilty only on charge II which could not be proved.

¶28

14) The Presiding Officer of the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa was examined as EW 1 and he stated that when he was working in the said post on 4.9.2023 the complainant Sanjeev Kumar, S.I. of Tebo Police Station appeared before him in

¶29

-3 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 638 of 2025

¶30

court and said that money was being demanded from him by Anit Chandra Kumar, office assistant in lieu of doing work for issuing nonbailable warrant of arrest against a particular accused and that he had also given verbal information to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chaibasa.

¶31

15) The complainant himself examined as EW 2 in the Inquiry and he stated categorically that Anit Chandra Kumar on 5.9.2023 demanded money from him and when he questioned why he should give money, Anit Chandra Kumar had stated that he had done the work of the complainant and Anit Chandra Kumar had also said that Nagendra Kumar ( petitioner) told him that whenever Sanjeev comes to gets his work done but does not make payment and reiterated that the problem of money had increased ever since the petitioner had been posted in the said Court. He also stated that on 13.3.2023 money was again demanded from him by the petitioner and Anit after getting the work done by them but he did not give the money. He stated that on 14.3.2024 at about 9:00 AM both Anit and the petitioner made phone call to him through the mobile of the petitioner demanding money and that the problem is not confined to the complainant but is affecting everybody since payment was being demanded from every one and he named certain others. He also stated that the petitioner would behave differently towards people who gave money and those who did not give money.

¶32

16) This material was properly considered by the Inquiry Officer along with other material regarding negligence on the part of the

¶33

-4 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 638 of 2025

¶34

petitioner in discharging his functions and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed. We are of the view that the findings of the inquiry officer are based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence.

¶35

17) We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner that the findings of the Inquiry Officers are perverse and warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

18) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶37

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

¶38

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶39

N.A.F.R.

¶40

Sharda/-

¶41

-5 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 638 of 2025