Natho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:9930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 940 of 2021

Natho Singh aged about 71 years, son of Late Daro Singh, resident of village-Marshal Mahal, P.O. and P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna (Bihar). …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS-

¶4

The State of Jharkhand.

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶6

The Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Police Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶7

The Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Police Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koila Range, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, District-Bokaro.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, at+P.O.+P.S.Bokaro, District-Bokaro. …..Respondent (s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv Mr. Raj Vardhan, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, A.C. to G.P.-IV

¶12

09/06.04.2026

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs;

¶15

(a) To quash the memo no.111 dated 28.03.2011 (Annx-5) passed by Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand and issued by the I.G. (Training) Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the salary for the intervening period from 25.10.2005 to 25.09.2008, during which the petitioner was kept

¶16

1

¶17

2026:JHHC:9930

¶18

under illegal/non-est dismissal, has been denied on the Principle of 'no work no pay' although he has been again exonerated in the remitted Departmental Proceeding and also acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding.

¶19

(b) To direct the respondents to treat the petitioner continuous in service and pay entire consequential service benefits and post retiral benefits including the arrear of salary for the period of 25.10.2005 to 25.09.2008 during which the he was forced to remain out from his service by the illegal order of dismissal based on non-est proceeding as has been held by the Appellate Authority.

¶20

(c) To direct the respondents to consider and shift the date of promotion on the post of Sergeant Major w.e.f. 20.07.1984 which has been given to him w.e.f. 02.07.1988 and accordingly grant all the constitutional benefits to him as well.

¶21

(d) Further for direction upon the Respondents to pay the statutory interest of 5% in accordance with circular bearing Memo No.:-P.C-2-1-46/79/3155 dated 07/11/1981 over the entire arrears of payment beside to that of penal interest of 18% per annum for perpetuating undue mental and physical harassment to the petitioner.

¶22

(e) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper, for which the petitioner may be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case for the ends of justice.

¶23

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s appointment letter to

¶24

the post of Sergeant was issued on 19.09.1974, and he submitted his joining on 17.10.1974. The DIG (Personnel), Bihar, Patna, issued an order stating that, owing to delay in issuance of promotion, the petitioner’s seniority would not be affected and would remain intact as per the fit list. Subsequently, a an order of dismissal was passed by the

¶25

2

¶26

2026:JHHC:9930

¶27

DGP, Jharkhand, and communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 90 dated 25.10.2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1802 of 2006, which was heard and disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Home Department, to decide the petitioner’s pending appeal on its own merits within six weeks.

¶28

4. On 18.09.2008, the Home Secretary, Jharkhand, quashed the dismissal order dated 28.10.2005 and reinstated the petitioner in service. The departmental proceeding was remanded to the DGP, Jharkhand, for reconsideration and was subsequently entrusted to the S.P., Bokaro, who exonerated the petitioner from all charges.

¶29

5. Thereafter, the I.G. (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi, issued the impugned order dated 28.03.2011, whereby, despite the petitioner being found not guilty and exonerated, payment of salary for the period 25.10.2005 to 25.09.2008 was denied on the principle of “no work, no pay”.

¶30

6. Further fact reveals that the petitioner had also been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 19.08.2002 in connection with Sachiwalaya P.S. Case No. 687 of 1991 , passed by the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Patna.

¶31

3

¶32

2026:JHHC:9930

¶33

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order of dismissal was initially passed against the petitioner, against which he preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the order of termination was quashed. However, the matter was remitted to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand for reconsideration after removing the lacuna. For brevity, the appellate order quashing the dismissal order is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶34

“1….

¶35

6. In view of the above, it is, hereby, ordered that -

¶36

(a) the impugned order of dismissal from service vide memo no. 90/मु, dated 25.10.2005 is quashed; accordingly, the appellant will report to DIG (Personnel), Jharkhand within 15 days of the receipt of this order;

¶37

(b) the departmental proceeding is remanded to Director General of Police Jharkhand for reconsideration after removing the lacunae pointed out at Para above; &

¶38

(c) the status of the duration between the date of dismissal and date of joining will be decided at the time of final outcome of this proceeding.”

¶39

8. Pursuant thereto, a remand order has been passed and based on the enquiry report, it has been categorically indicated that the charge has not been proved by the enquiry officer. However, it appears that in the impugned order, the concerned officer has directed “no work, no pay” for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement be treated as extra ordinary leave.

¶40

It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that, on the one hand, the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, and also on the other hand, in criminal case he has been acquitted and treating the period from date of dismissal till date of reinstatement as dies non and considering it for the purpose of salary as ‘no work no pay’ is non est in the eye of law. The

¶41

4

¶42

2026:JHHC:9930

¶43

decision of extra ordinary leave by the officer cannot be taken suo motu .

¶44

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement has been taken as extraordinary leave and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order.

¶45

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein; from the order dated 18.09.2008 passed by the appellate authority, it is evident that the order of dismissal was quashed and set aside and the petitioner was directed to appear before the DIG (Personnel) and the matter was remitted to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand for reconsideration. It was also observed in the said appellate order that the status of duration between the date of dismissal and the date of joining will be decided at the time of final outcome of this proceeding.

¶46

11. Pursuant thereto, a proper enquiry was held by S.P. Bokaro and the petitioner was exonerated. As a matter of fact, in the impugned order at Annexure-5, it is clearly indicated. For brevity, the relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: -

¶47

5

¶48

2026:JHHC:9930

¶49

“…. अतः अपचार� सेवा�नवृत हो चुके ह�। संचालन पदा�धकार� के मंत�य से सहमत होते हुए अपचार� को इस �वभागीय काय�वाह� म� ग�ठत आरोपो से दोषमु�त �कया जाता है। अपचार� क� सेवा�नवृ�त से पूव� बखा � तगी के बाद एवं सरकार के आदेश से सेवा म� पुनः आने के म�य क� उनक� अनुपि�थ�त अव�ध के �लए उ�ह� "काय� नह�ं तो वेतन नह�ं " के �स�धांत के आधार पर कुछ भी देय नह�ं होगा तथा इस अनुपि�थत अव�ध को E.Q.L म� सामंिजत करने का आदेश �दया जाता है। ”

¶50

12. After going through the aforesaid order, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has already been superannuated and the enquiry officer has given a categorical finding that the charges has not been proved and he has already been exonerated.

¶51

In this background, the order with regard to “no work no pay” is non-est in the eye of law. Further, at this stage itself, it is necessary to observe that any period treating extraordinary leave of an employee cannot be taken by the respondents suo-motu and there is a specific procedure. This Court in the case of Sunita Devi Versus State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 7323 of 2019 has dealt this issue at para nos. 5, 8 and 9. For brevity, the same are

¶52

quoted hereinbelow:- .

¶53

“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that treating the service as extraordinary leave is somehow or the other not proper.

¶54

6. Rule 236 of the Jharkhand Service Code talks about extraordinary leave. Relevant part of Rule 236 is quoted herein below:

¶55

“236. Extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government servant in special circumstances:- (i) when no other leave is admissible under these rules.

¶56

(ii) When, other leave being admissible, the Government servant concerned applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.”

¶57

7. In the instant writ application, the respondents have not brought on record any application filed by the petitioner for treating the period as extraordinary leave because as per the aforesaid rule the Government servant has to apply in writing and granting suo moto extraordinary leave is not permissible.

¶58

6

¶59

2026:JHHC:9930

¶60

Further, when the Petitioner has been reinstated, she became entitled for all leave etc.; what her co-employees availed or entitled.

¶61

8. Even otherwise, Rule 841 of the Jharkhand Police Manual deals with allowance during suspension. Rule 841(e) deals with pay, allowance and treatment of service on reinstatement. Relevant part of the Rule 841(e) is quoted hereinbelow:

¶62

“841(e) Pay allowance and treatment of service on reinstatement. –

¶63

1) When a member of the service who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended is reinstated then for his retirement or superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent shall make order as to –

¶64

(a) the pay and allowances which shall be paid to him for the period of his absence from duty or of suspension ending with the date of retirement; and (b) whether or not, the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) (a) where such competent authority holds that he has been fully exonerated, he shall be granted the full pay to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed suspended, etc., together with any allowance which he was in receipt immediately prior to his dismissal, suspension, etc., or may have been sanctioned subsequently.

¶65

(b) In all other cases, he shall be granted such proportion of such pay as such the competent authority may direct; provided that the payment of allowance shall be subject to such conditions as may be applicable to it: Provided further that this shall not be less than the subsistence and other allowances admissible under Rule 841 (a).

¶66

(3) (a) In a case falling under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) the period of absence from duty shall for all purposes be treated as a period spent on duty.

¶67

(b) In a case falling under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specially directs as such in writing. 9. After going through the aforesaid rule, it appears that if the delinquent is fully exonerated, he/she shall be entitled for full salary………” Emphasis Supplied

¶68

13. Further, the issue of non-payment of entire salary

¶69

between the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement; one has to see as to whether the delinquent was at fault for being out of service. The factual background of this case clearly indicates that the petitioner was dismissed from service and at the first instance itself he has been reinstated in service by the appellate authority and in the remand proceeding he has also been exonerated by the enquiry officer and pursuant thereto, the competent authority has also accepted the recommendation of the enquiry officer.

¶70

7

¶71

2026:JHHC:9930

¶72

As such, in the aforesaid background, this court holds that the petitioner was never at fault for being out of service; as such he is entitled for full salary i.e. from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.03.2011; is modified.

¶73

14. Accordingly, the entire payment including consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶74

15. Consequently, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.As. if any, also stands disposed of.

¶75

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶76

06.04.2026

¶77

Amardeep/ AFR/ Uploaded on 09.04.2026

¶78

8

Natho Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natho Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Ram Alias Ravi Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Baraik Alias Sanju Kumar Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sri Badri Narayan Pandey Vs the Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Manju Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Shashi Ranjan Trivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Agriculture

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary