Jharkhand HC Quashes Constable's Dismissal: Penalty Rested on Charge Never Framed in Charge Sheet

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi set aside dismissal orders against a Jharkhand Armed Police constable, finding that the penalty was imposed on a ground absent from the charge sheet and that the enquiry rested on uncorroborated complainant testimony.

Justice Deepak Roshan, sitting singly at the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, on 9 June 2026 quashed three orders dismissing Bharat Pathak, a constable with the Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP) since 2007, from service. The court found that the disciplinary authority had punished the petitioner on the basis of an FIR registered under Section 376(2)(n) IPC — a charge that had never been part of the formal charge sheet issued to him. The enquiry report itself, the court recorded, relied solely on the oral statement of the complainant without any independent documentary corroboration. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back wages and all consequential service benefits.

Complaint, Suspension, and Departmental Proceedings

Bharat Pathak had served as a constable with the Jharkhand Armed Police since 2007. In 2023, one Mrs. Jyoti Kumari filed a complaint before the Commandant, JAP-10, Ranchi, alleging that the petitioner had performed marriage with her and maintained a physical relationship between 4 October 2019 and 25 April 2023, and had thereafter refused to continue the relationship.

A preliminary enquiry report submitted on 23 August 2023 noted that both the petitioner and the complainant were married with children, that they had been in a consensual relationship and had lived together at hotels and rented accommodation after meeting online. The report noted the dispute arose when the petitioner denied the relationship, causing what the report described as societal embarrassment to the complainant. A police case, Chutia PS Case No. 203/2023 dated 16 September 2023, was registered under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) IPC.

The Commandant, JAP-10 (Respondent No. 4), issued a letter on 2 September 2023 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within two days, by 4 September 2023. The petitioner was suspended on 8 September 2023 on a living cost allowance after his reply was found unsatisfactory. A formal charge sheet followed on 12 September 2023 on the same factual allegations as the preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 23 December 2023, having examined four witnesses: Jon Erica Kujur, Devanti Devi, Laxman Kumar Singh, and the complainant Jyoti Kumari.

What the Enquiry Witnesses Actually Said

The court paid close attention to the cross-examination of Jon Erica Kujur and Devanti Devi, who had conducted the preliminary enquiry and were then examined as witnesses in the departmental proceedings. Their cross-examination revealed that, apart from the complainant's own statement, there was nothing on record to establish the allegations. The complainant had produced no identity proof or residential proof with her complaint. No evidence existed of the petitioner having stayed at any rented house with her. No CCTV footage from the alleged hotel was examined. Even the purported marriage at a temple in Howrah was supported by nothing beyond the complainant's own claim.

The petitioner was unable to cross-examine the complainant personally, the record showed, because he was mentally disturbed and the criminal case was already pending before the competent court.

The enquiry report, the court found, reproduced the petitioner's stand without discussing it and rested entirely on the findings of the preliminary enquiry, which in turn rested entirely on the complainant's statement. Justice Deepak Roshan described the enquiry report as a “non-speaking report” for this reason.

Dismissal on a Ground Outside the Charge Sheet

After receiving a second show cause notice dated 30 December 2023 along with a copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner filed his reply on 29 January 2024. He was transferred to Sahibganj, where he served with JAP-9. An order of removal from service was then passed on 31 December 2024 under Police Manual Rule 824(b).

The court noted that the removal order did not rest on the charge as originally framed — having a relationship with a married woman while being married himself, amounting to indiscipline and damage to the reputation of the police department. Instead, the final order stated that since an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC had been registered at Chutia PS, the same amounted to a serious offence and therefore the petitioner was dismissed. A consequential order dated 14 January 2025 bearing Anukramik Baladesh Sankhya No. 42/2025 was passed by the Commandant, JAP-9, Sahibganj, recording the same finding.

The dismissal order also directed that the petitioner would receive no payment beyond 52 days' pay during his suspension (8 September 2023 to 26 September 2023, and 3 November 2023 to 5 December 2023), and that a 37-day period between 27 September 2023 and 2 November 2023 would be adjusted as extraordinary leave. Despite having been removed from service, the petitioner was reportedly called for duty from 1 January 2025 to 7 January 2025 and was not paid for those days either.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. That appeal was rejected by memo dated 4 December 2025, on the ground that since the petitioner had indulged in the alleged act despite being married, he was guilty of the offence. A representation to the Director General of Police, made on 27 January 2025, went unanswered. The petitioner then filed W.P.(S) No. 1833 of 2026 before the High Court.

Three Grounds Pressed Before the Court

Counsel for the petitioner pressed three distinct grounds. First, that the penalty order rested on a charge — the existence of an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC — that had never been part of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner. Second, that both the enquiry report and the penalty orders were non-speaking, failing to address any of the grounds raised in the petitioner's reply. Third, that adultery, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, is no longer a criminal offence and cannot found a disciplinary action.

The State Government filed an affidavit reiterating its position as taken in the enquiry report and contending that the principles of natural justice had been complied with.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Deepak Roshan found the dismissal unsustainable on each of the three grounds.

On the charge-sheet ground, the court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160, which held that an employer is confined to the specific charges framed in the charge sheet and cannot add further charges or found the penalty on matters outside it. The court also referred to Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Tahir Ali Saifi, (1976) 3 SCC 69, which took a similar view. Since the final dismissal order explicitly rested on the existence of an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC — a ground that had never been part of the charge sheet — it caused the petitioner severe prejudice and violated the principles of natural justice.

On the non-speaking order ground, the court noted that neither the dismissal orders nor the appellate authority's rejection order recorded cogent reasons for how the charges were proved. The appellate authority had simply concluded that, since the petitioner had indulged in the alleged act while married, he was guilty — without examining the evidence at all. Relying on ORYX Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, the court held that an order which does not engage with the reply filed by the delinquent employee is legally bad. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had recorded any consideration of the petitioner's reply; both appeared to have acted on the nature of the allegations rather than on legally admissible evidence.

On the adultery ground, the court referred to Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, in which the Supreme Court struck down the offence of adultery. The court held that the term “moral turpitude” is a very subjective term and cannot be applied without judicial application of mind, and that the respondent authorities had failed to consider this position of law.

Taken together, the court held the impugned action to be arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Order

Justice Deepak Roshan quashed and set aside all three impugned orders: the dismissal order dated 31 December 2024, the consequential order dated 14 January 2025, and the appellate authority's rejection order dated 4 December 2025. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Constable in the Jharkhand Armed Police with back wages and all consequential service benefits. W.P.(S) No. 1833 of 2026 was allowed in full. Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.