1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1687 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 28/ 02/2026 Judgment Delivered On : 09/ 04/2026 Kesharichand Sahu S/o Late H.R. Sahu, Aged About 39 Years, Working as Inspector, Police Station Mardum, Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Pin 490009 4 - The Superintendent of Police District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned punishment order dated 26.10.2019 passed by respondent No.3, whereby a penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed. The petitioner further challenges the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the Appellant Authority (respondent No.2), which dismissed the appeal preferred against the said punishment order. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to the case and the case decided by respondent no. 3 for kind perusal. 10.2 To set aside the impugned appellate order annexure P/6 dated 26.10.2022. 10.3 To set aside the impugned penalty order annexure P/5 dated 26.10.2019 and enquiry report (annexure P/3) 10.4 Το direct respondents to grant petitioner all consequential benefits 10.5 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. 3 3. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and three other delinquent officers. The specific charge framed against petitioner – Kesharichand Sahu (Inspector) alleged that upon assuming charge of the Police Station, Gandai on 7.10.2018, he demonstrated negligence in his duties by not obtaining information regarding pending warrants from Head Constable Mansay Tirkey and Constable Goverdhan Chouhan. It has been further alleged that the petitoner did not forward necessary information to his Hon’ble Court regarding the status of the service of the said warrant(s). A Departmental Enquiry was subsequently initiated on the basis of said charge. According to the petitioner, the allegations levelled against him were not substantiated by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves. However, the concerned authority, without considering the above aspect, proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner assumed charge as SHO of Police Station, Gandai on 7.10.2018. On that day, he has taken charge from his predecessor, who was the then Incharge of the said Police Station. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has failed to execute a bailable warrant issued by this Court against one Lalji Malla @ Kanthi in Criminal Appeal No.1954/1999, which directed the service thereof upon the accused to ensure his appearance. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that upon assuming charge of the Police Station, Gandai, he failed to 4 verify the Monthly Goswara Register concerning the service of bailable warrants and summons. It is further alleged that the petitioner failed to ensure that a compliance report was submitted before this Court. Therefore, the absence of any record indicating whether the warrant was served or whether a report was submitted before this Court led to the inference that the petitioner was negligent in his duties, thereby resulting in initiation of departmental proceedings. Though in his reply to the show cause notice/charge sheet, the petitioner categorically submitted that the said warrant was not recorded in the relevant Station Registers nor was it ever physically handed over to him during the transition of charge. Consequently, as the incumbent SHO, the petitioner was never made aware of the pending of the said warrant. It was also stated by him that non-service of the warrant and subsequent non-compliance with this Court’s order were a direct consequence of this omission. The petitioner specifially stated that had the bailable warrant been duly entered in the register as a standard procedure, he would have ensured its prompt execution and submitted the necessary compliance report to this Court. The petitioner further stated in the reply that he has not committed any misconduct much less an act of negligence in discharge of his duties, that would warrant the imposition of a penalty. Though a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner explaining the clerical omission in the station registers, but the respondent authorities failed to consider the 5 same in its true perspective. The impugned punishment order was passed in a perfunctory manner without appreciating the petitioner’s defence and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the bailable warrant in question was not recorded in the Monthly Goswara Register, a fact categorically admitted by the prosecution witnesses, and was further not reflected as ‘pending’ in the said Register, the allegation of non-compliance or negligence of duty cannot be sustained. He further submits that a bare perusal of the record of Departmental Enquiry would show that that the petitioner has been punished for an act he did not commit. After assuming the charge as SHO in Police Station, Gandai on 7.10.2018, the petitioner took over the existing record in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, since the Monthly Goswara Register contained no entry regarding the subject summons/bailable warrant, the petitioner was unaware of its pendency. He further submits that in absence of such knowledge or a handover process, the question of willful disobedience or illegality does not arise. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses themselves have categorically admitted during the enquiry that the warrant was not entered into the Monthly Goswara Register, therefore, the allegations of negligence is unsubstantiated and prima facie not found to be proved. He lastly submits that the impugned punishment order and the impugned appellate order 6 confirming the same, are per se illegal, perverse and liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner was not the only official proceeded against, rather other delinquent officers were also charged with distinct counts of negligence, concerning the same bailable warrant in respect of Lalji Malla - accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1954/1999. He submits that the entire Departmental Enquiry was conducted in strict adherence to the prescribed legal procedure and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing, however, he did not provide a satisfactory explanation to exculpate himself from the charges. Hence, the respondent authorities have correctly penalized the petitioner and the impugned orders, being well reasoned, do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed to the petition. 8. From a bare perusal of the evidence adduced during the Departmental Enquiry, it is evident that the prime document i.e. Monthly Goswara Register of the concerned Police Station did mention the said bailable warrant. The petitioner, having newly assumed charge of the Police Station on 7.10.2018, remained factually unaware of the pendency of the bailable warrant. In the absence of such knowledge or any formal record thereof, the petitioner could not comply with the 7 directions of this Court and the bailable warrant could not be served upon accused/appellant - Lalji Malla in Criminal Appeal No. 1954/1999. 9. In order to sustain a charge of negligence of duty, it is condition precedent to establish that the delinquent officer had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts underlying the allegation. In the absence of such knowledge or a willful omission, any failure to act cannot be said to be misconduct, particularly when the omission arises from a bonafide lack of information rather than deliberate dereliction. The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the petitioner willfully or through gross dereliction failed to execute the bailable warrant issued by the High Court. However, the evidence on record, particularly the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses, confirms that the warrant was not reflected as ‘pending’ in the Monthly Goswara Register. 10. Once the pendency of a warrant is not reflected in the Monthly Goswara Register, constructive knowledge of such pendency cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In the absence of such knowledge, the failure to execute the warrant cannot be assumed as an act of negligence. Unless and until there is substantive evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had actual knowledge of the warrant’s existence, he cannot be visited with a penalty. 11. In a judgment rendered in the matter of Sher Bahadur Vs. 8 Union of India and others1, the following was held in para 7 : 7. It may be observed that the expression “sufficiency of evidence” postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report, “in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry”, would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. Though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness Shri R.A. Vashist, Ex. CVI/Northern Railway, New Delhi, in support of the charges, he was not examined. Regarding documentary evidence, Ext. P- 1, referred to in the enquiry report and adverted to by the High Court, is the order of appointment of the appellant which is a neutral fact. The enquiry officer examined the charged officer but nothing is elicited to connect him with the charge. The statement of the appellant recorded by the enquiry officer shows no more than his working earlier to his re-engagement during the period between May 1978 and November 1979 in different phases. Indeed, his statement was not relied upon by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer that in view of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, the charge against the appellant for securing the fraudulent appointment letter duly signed by the said APO (Const.) was proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. In our view, this is clearly a case of finding the appellant guilty of charge without having any evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct. The High Court did not consider this aspect in its proper perspective as such the 1. (2002) 7 SCC 142 9 judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that the evidence adduced during the Departmental Enquiry does not establish that any entries regarding the warrant were made in the Monthly Goswara Register at the time the petitioner assumed the charge of SHO in the Police Station, Gandai. In the absence of such record, it cannot be said that the pendency of warrant was within the specific knowledge of the petitioner. 13. In light of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned punishment order as well as the appellate order confirming the same, are not in accordance with law and the same are liable to be quashed/set-aside. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.10.2019 (Annexure P/5) & the impugned appellate order dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P/6) are hereby quashed. 15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay