Jharkhand High Court
WRIT PETITION 4644 of 2021 on 11 September 2004
2025:JHHC:30967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4644 of 2021
------
Gopal Ram, son of late Daroga Ram, resident of village Kulmanpur, P.OShivpur, P.S. Nawanagar, District- Buxar (Bihar)… Petitioner(s)Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police, office atDhurwa, Ranchi. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police office at Dhurwa,Ranchi. Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police office at Dhurwa,Ranchi. Ranchi.
4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, office at P.O and P.S andDistrict- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.... Respondent(s)District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.... Respondent(s)
CORAM:SRI ANANDA SEN, J.------
For the petitioner(s):Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.For the State:Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
------
11/07.10.2025:In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated4.3.2003 as contained in Memo No. 540 whereby, the petitioner was inflictedpunishment of compulsory retirement. He further challenged the appellateorder dated 11.9.2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner hasbeen dismissed.
2. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was inflictedpunishment on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent. Earlier also inhis tenure of 30 years of service, six times he was absent unauthorizedly andabsconded twice.
3. Be it noted that the petitioner was a constable in police force,which is a disciplined force. Further earlier he was inflicted three minorpunishment and two major punishment, thus the punishment of compulsoryretirement was passed, considering his misconduct.
4. The punishment order is of the year 2003. The appeal of thepetitioner was also dismissed in the year 2004. The petitioner in the year2021 i.e. after 17 years has approached this Court challenging the order ofdismissal as well as the appellate order. The reason of delay, according tohim is that he was suffering from some mental ailments. He has producedsome documents i.e. prescriptions of doctors, which are at page Nos. 17 to20 of the writ petition.
5. Page No. 17 of the writ petition is a cover which does notmention that the petitioner was indoor patient or outdoor patient. Page No.
18 is a prescription dated 21.9.2003 which notes that the petitioner wassuffering from mental disorder but there is nothing to suggest that thepetitioner was either admitted in hospital or not. Same is the position at pageNo. 19 which is of dated 11.2.2004 in which some medicines only have beenprescribed. The next and last document is of dated 16.5.2021, which is acertificate of one P. Kumar, who certified that the petitioner was under histreatment from 21.9.2003. There is nothing in the certificate which wouldsuggest that at any point of time, the petitioner was admitted in mentalhospital. Further there is no document between 2004 to 2021. Thus, thesedocuments absolutely do not inspire any confidence.
6. The fact remains that after more than 17 years, the punishmentorder has been challenged before this Court. The petitioner has slept formore than 17 years. There is abnormal delay and laches on the part of thepetitioner in seeking relief. Thus he is not entitled to get any relief, as soughtfor in this writ petition.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
07[th] October, 2025
Anu/-
(ANANDA SEN, J.)