PAWAN TOPPO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - INDRANIL BHADURI — WPC/2905/2022

Disposed: Contested--Partly Allowed on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010209282022

Filing Number

WPC/4174/2022

Filing Date

24-Jun-2022

Registration No

WPC/2905/2022

Registration Date

27-Jun-2022

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE RELATING TO STATE GOVT. ( 171 )

Sub-Category

Punishment ( 33 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Partly Allowed

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PAWAN TOPPO

    Adv. Advocate- ,JAY SHANKAR TIWARY,AVISHEK CHANDRA,VINCENT ROHIT MARKI,AMAN JOHN TIRKEY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - INDRANIL BHADURI

  2. 2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME PRISON AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT

  3. 3.THE DIRECTOR PROSECUTION DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT HOME PRISON AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT

  4. 4.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PAKUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak RoshanView PDF

    Case Summary: WPC/2905/2022 - Pawan Toppo v. State of Jharkhand The Jharkhand High Court partially allowed Pawan Toppo's writ petition challenging his disciplinary punishment. An Additional Public Prosecutor suspended since February 2018 was awarded only a warning in April 2022 (after 1534 days), with his suspension period treated as "on duty" but salary withheld except subsistence allowance. The court quashed the salary deprivation order, finding he was entitled to full salary under Rule 97(1) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The court remitted the matter to authorities to issue a fresh notice under Rule 97(1) and pass an appropriate order within 8 weeks; if not complied, the petitioner becomes entitled to all monetary benefits automatically. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Feb-2026

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  4. 08-Jan-2026

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  5. 23-Dec-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  6. 08-Dec-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  7. 20-Nov-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  8. 06-Nov-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  9. 16-Oct-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  10. 08-Oct-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  11. 23-Sep-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  12. 16-Sep-2025

    Admission

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.

  13. 12-Sep-2025

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF

  14. 12-Sep-2025

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  15. 08-Aug-2025

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  16. 18-Jul-2025

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  17. 04-Jan-2024

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. N. PathakView PDF

  18. 18-Dec-2023

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. N. PathakView PDF

  19. 18-Dec-2023

    Admission

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. N. Pathak

  20. 15-Dec-2023

    Admission

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. N. Pathak

  21. 03-Nov-2023

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  22. 15-Sep-2023

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  23. 07-Aug-2023

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  24. 28-Jun-2023

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  25. 13-Oct-2022

    Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF

  26. 24-Aug-2022

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. N. PathakView PDF

  27. 24-Aug-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 24-Jun-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/2905/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPC/2905/2022 - Pawan Toppo v. State of Jharkhand The Jharkhand High Court partially allowed Pawan Toppo's writ petition challenging his disciplinary punishment. An Additional Public Prosecutor suspended since February 2018 was awarded only a warning in April 2022 (after 1534 days), with his suspension period treated as "on duty" but salary withheld except subsistence allowance. The court quashed the salary deprivation order, finding he was entitled to full salary under Rule 97(1) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The court remitted the matter to authorities to issue a fresh notice under Rule 97(1) and pass an appropriate order within 8 weeks; if not complied, the petitioner becomes entitled to all monetary benefits automatically. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case