Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P (S). No. 3862 of 2019

Sanjay Kumar, Ex-Constable No. 669 JAP-5, Deoghar, aged 46 years, son of Sri Mukhdev Singh, resident of village-Adarshnagar, P.O. & P.S. Tatislve, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶6

……….. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶10

The Commandant, JAP-5, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶12

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

¶13

……….. Respondents

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III

¶16

¶17

05/ 08.01.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:

¶18

“a. For quashing and setting aside the Office order dated 24.1.2018 (Annexure-8) passed by the Commandant, JAP-5, Deoghar (respondent no. 3) in JAP-5, Deoghar Departmental Proceeding No. 25/2017 whereby and where under the petitioner being a Constable has been dismissed from the service in a highhanded and illegal manner.

¶19

b. For quashing and setting aside the Office order contained in Memo No. 198/D dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure 10) wherein the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶20

c. For directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner from 24.01.2018 with all consequential and monetary benefits, and

¶21

d. Further direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner continuously in service from the alleged date of his dismissal from the service.”

¶22

2. Briefly stated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against this petitioner for which charge-sheet was issued (Annexure-3) and after the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, enquiry report was

¶23

1

¶24

2026:JHHC:391

¶25

submitted before the Disciplinary Authority holding the charge to be proved and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after going through the enquiry report and the records, imposed the punishment of dismissal.

¶26

3. Amongst the other grounds on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a peculiar case where the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and in essence, he became prosecutor apart from Umpire for which he was duly appointed. In other words, in the instant case, there was no Presenting Officer, who has been appointed. He further draws attention of the Court towards Annexure-3, which is charge-sheet and the enquiry report, which is Annexure-5 and submits that nowhere there is a reference of Presenting Officer and even the Inquiry Officer has not given any indication that Presenting Officer has been appointed.

¶27

4. He further submits that normally in the charge-sheet itself, the name of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are indicated and if not, a letter with regard to appointment of Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer is issued to the delinquent. However, in the instant case; neither a separate letter with regard to appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer has been issued and/or served to the petitioner, nor there is any reference of the Presenting Officer; as such, it is against the settled principle of service jurisprudence that Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently, cannot act as a Prosecutor. As such, on this score alone, the impugned order of punishment is vitiated.

¶28

5. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that there is no document on record in order to rebut the aforesaid contention. However, relying upon the counter-affidavit, he submits that the charge was very grave and proper evidence was led and several witnesses were examined; as such, only on the question that there was no Presenting Officer, the entire proceeding cannot be held to be vitiated.

¶29

2

¶30

2026:JHHC:391

¶31

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; without going into the merits of the case; this Court inclines to interfere with the impugned orders only on the question that there was no Presenting Officer in the instant case and the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and he himself examined witnesses, etc.

¶32

The law in this regard is very clear that Inquiry Officer, who has to act independently, cannot act as a Prosecutor. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma¹ relevant para of which is extracted herein below:

¶33

“36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the examinationin-chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.

¶34

37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost while adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases. 38. In result, all the appeals are dismissed subject to the liberty as granted by the High Court that it shall be open for the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High Court and it shall be open for the appellant to decide on arrear pay and allowances of the respondents.”

¶35

7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that there was no Presenting Officer in the entire proceeding and the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and proved the charge; as such, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the principle of natural justice has not been complied with. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment has categorically held that the Inquiry Officer is supposed to act independently in an enquiry and not as a Prosecutor.

¶36

8. On this score alone, this writ application succeeds and the impugned orders dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure-10) and order dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure-8), are hereby, quashed and set aside.

1 (2018) 7 SCC 670

3

2026:JHHC:391

Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith or in any case not beyond the period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶41

9. However, the Respondents would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶42

10. So far as claim of the petitioner for back wages is concerned, he shall file a separate application before the respondents along with statement that he has not worked anywhere and pursuant thereto, the respondent shall take an informed decision on the question of back wages.

¶43

11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.

¶44

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶45

8^th January, 2026

¶46

Kunal Uploaded on 20.01.2026

¶47

4

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Deo Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Birendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shardanand Prasad Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Dr Smita Kumari Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Management of Usha Martin Ltd. through Its Senior Manager (Legal),Manas Verma Vs Dharmendra Kumar

Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand