Amanat Khan, son of Shoaib Khan, resident of village Chand, P.O. Patari, P.S. Chand v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police, Police House, P.O
Case Details
2025:JHHC:33720 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 7420 of 2017 ------- Amanat Khan, son of Shoaib Khan, resident of village Chand, P.O. Patari, P.S. Chand, District Kaimur (Bhabua), Bihar. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police, Police House, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Police House, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, Dist. Hazaribag. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O. & P.S. Koderma, Dist. Koderma. 5. The Enquiry Officer-cum-Officer-In-Charge, Telaiya Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Telaiya, Dist. Koderma. 6. The Sergeant Major, Police Lane, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District Koderma. ……….. Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : : For the State Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Anand No. 2, AC to GP-IV ---- 10/ 12.11.2025 The instant application has been preferred for the following reliefs: issued under issued under the signature of A. For quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 248 dated 12.10.2017 the respondent Director General of Police, whereby and whereunder, the Mercy Appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been dismissed. B. For quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 1517 dated 22.08.2016 the Respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag whereby and whereunder, the Statutory Appeal preferred by the Petitioner as against the order of punishment dated 28.03.2016 has been rejected. C. For quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.610 dated 28.03.2016 signature of issued under Superintendent of Police, Koderma whereby and whereunder the Disciplinary Authority in the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Koderma District Departmental Proceeding No.11/2015 has imposed the signature of the 1 2025:JHHC:33720 the severest punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner. D. For quashing of the entire departmental proceeding contemplated against the Petitioner and Article of Charge imputation dated 21.03.2015, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Koderma. 2. Briefly stated, vide order no. 4823277 dated 17.03.2015, the petitioner along with other police constables were directed to take an accused person namely Baiju Yadav to RIMS, Ranchi for medical treatment. On 21.03.2015, the petitioner has lodged an FIR being Koderma P.S. Case No. 42/2015, narrating the occurrence that had taken place on 19.03.2015, when the petitioner, accused person and other were returning back to Koderma and at Hazaribag they had been offered cold drink mixed with intoxicant and under the effect of intoxication were taken to Niyamatpur in West Bengal. 3. On 21.03.2015 itself, the petitioner was sent for Medical Examination wherein the doctor had found the petitioner to be not under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter, on 25.03.2015, the petitioner had been served with the Memo of Charge issued in relation to indiscipline, negligence etc. for going to Red Light Area with the accused. 4. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was initiated and the Inquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry proceeding submitted his report dated 25.04.2015, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Koderma vide its order contained in Memo No. 716 dated 08.05.2015 had imposed the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from services. 5. Since the 2nd show-cause notice was not issued to the petitioner before inflicting the punishment of dismissal, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag vide Memo No.2105 dated 16.11.2015 had interfered and set-aside the order of the respondent- Superintendent of Police, Koderma. In pursuance to the order dated 2 2025:JHHC:33720 16.11.2015 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag, the petitioner was reinstated and the respondent Superintendent of Police, Koderma vide Memo No.2107 dated 11.12.2015 passed an order for payment of salary of the petitioner. 6. Further fact reveals that the petitioner had been served a second show cause notice vide Memo No.128 dated 18.01.2016, as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from services, to which the Petitioner replied vide his letter dated 28.01.2016 denying the charges levelled against him. However, the Superintendent of Police, Koderma vide its order contained in Memo No. 610 dated 28.03.2016 had dismissed the petitioner from services. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred Appeal; however, the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 22.08.2016 had rejected the appeal and upheld the dismissal order of the petitioner. The respondent- Director General of Police vide order contained in Memo No. 248 dated 13.10.2017 had also dismissed the Mercy Appeal upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the law is well settled that if any person is not medically examined then the charge of consuming liquor is not proved and from bare perusal of the impugned order it is clear that there was no medical examination of the petitioner. Learned counsel reiterated that in absence of medical examination of the petitioner for consumption of liquor, the charge is not said to be proved. He further draws attention of the Court towards Annexure-3 (page 38 of the writ application), wherein there was a medical report, certainly after more than 24 hours, which indicates 0% Alcohol in the body of the petitioner. 9. Relying upon the said Annexure-3, learned counsel contended that on the one hand, the Department did not medically check-up the petitioner shortly and after 24 hours, admittedly, there was 0% Alcohol found in his body. Relying upon the aforesaid facts and 3 2025:JHHC:33720 circumstances, learned counsel contended that the impugned order of termination be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there was no procedural error in conducting the departmental proceeding and this Court cannot sit in appeal and decide the case. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the petitioner was appointed as constable on 09.05.1988. On 17.03.2015, the petitioner along with other police constables were directed to escort Baiju Yadav from Koderma Jail to RIMS, Ranchi for his medical treatment. The said accused was treated at RIMS and finally discharged on 19.03.2015. 12. It is an admitted case that while returning to Koderma, they stopped for dinner at Barhi. However, after having meals, the petitioner became unconscious and was found at a place named Niyamatpur (West Bengal). Thus, the contention of the petitioner that in medical examination he was found having 0% Alcohol but the fact remains that when petitioner was found at a place in West Bengal, there was no occasion for immediate medical examination. Further, the respondent-Department has certainly made an examination after 24 hours and to due to that fact, it was found that he was not having any Alcohol. 13. Be that as it may; so far as the charge is concerned, the same has been considered in the enquiry proceeding and the Inquiry Officer has given a detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. At this stage it is also pertinent to mention that initially, the Disciplinary Authority without giving any 2nd show-cause notice to the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal. However, when the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority (Annexure-8 to the writ application), the case was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently, he was issued 2nd show- cause notice. 4 2025:JHHC:33720 14. After going through the impugned order of termination it appears that the same is well reasoned and detailed order and it cannot be said to be a non-speaking order and looking to the gravity of charges as well as the facts arrived in the enquiry proceeding, I do not find any error with the impugned order and the instant application stands dismissed. 12th November, 2025 Kunal Uploaded on 22/11/2025 (Deepak Roshan, J.) 5