RANCHI, India, Nov. 6 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 6:

I.A. No.4213 of 2025

1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and for the reasons stated in the present Interlocutory Application, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 160 days that has crept into filing the appeal.

2. Accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application is allowed and the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 408 of 2025

3. This appeal is preferred by the appellants-State against the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 6763 of 2019.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State.

5. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned Writ Court.

6. The writ petitioner had approached the learned Writ Court for setting aside Memo No. 1946 dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure 5)issued by the Special Secretary, S.T./S.C. Minority and OBC Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent No.4), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the post of Head Clerk. The petitioner also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, dismissing the appeal prayed for quashing the entire departmental proceeding.

7. The case of the petitioner was that while he was posted as Head Clerk at District Welfare Office, Chatra, embezzlement of Rs.9,33,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore Thirty Three Lakh) was alleged to have been committed by the employees of District Welfare Office, Chatra.

8. Accordingly, police case being Chatra P.S. Case No. 165 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 945 of 2018 came to be registered for the offence allegedly committed under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 409, 406, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

9. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, pursuant to which he was taken into custody and at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had been enlarged on bail.

10. As regards the Department, it conducted a preliminary inquiry in which the allegations against the petitioner prima facie were found to be proved and accordingly, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

11. It was the case of the petitioner before the learned Writ Court that during the course of regular departmental proceeding, the respondents led no oral evidence and the petitioner had been found guilty on the basis of the findings recorded in the preliminary inquiry and subsequently was ordered to be dismissed from service.

12. The learned Writ Court found the contentions of the petitioner to be correct and accordingly, set aside both the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the respondents directing the respondents to conduct a fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x7KqNZlv9hOlhBzPfVjdlgcilysAXKQhLrshQAYIuOsu&caseno=LPA/408/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010111882025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.