1 2025:CGHC:8219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5384 of 2012 1 - Shivnath Bhagat Ex-Constable S/o Lt Shri Lundra Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Manora, Post, Ps And Tah Manora, Distt Jashpur, CG ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deptt Of Home Affairs, Dks Bhawan, Raipur, Distt Raipur, CG 2 - The Director General Of Police C.G., Raipur, Distt Raipur, CG 3 - Inspector General Of Police PHQ Bilaspur Division, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 17/02/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ for quashing/ set aside the order dated 06.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) as well as the order passed by the Superintendent of Police dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P-3). 10.2 Any other relief/ reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 2. Fact of the case reflects that the petitioner was working as Police Constable in Police Station Raigarh. A complaint was lodged against him consequently a departmental enquiry was conducted against him with the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner has violated regulation 64 (2)(3) & 64 (4) and was found unfit for the department. After a full-fledged departmental enquiry, the petitioner was 2 imposed with a punishment of removal from service. That order was also subject to challenge before the appellate authority who also dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has remained unauthorizedly absent for only 11 days and the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned Annexure P-3 & Annexure P-5 may be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in the services. 4. On the contrary, counsel for the State opposed the submissions and submitted that three charges were leveled against the petitioner, one of them being of unauthorized absence on duty from 06.11.2007 to 17.11.2007 total 11 days without any intimation or permission shown gross indiscipline and violates regulation 64 (2) (3) of Police Regulations, the other being despite having been punished for 21 minor punishment and considering his unauthorized absence for 51 times under the Leave Rules, the appellant has not improved his conduct and violating Regulation 64 (4) of Police Regulation and thirdly on account of which he was found unfit for the department. He further submits that after due departmental enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing the impugned orders were passed. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence laid in the departmental enquiry, the petition sans merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There are three charges leveled against the petitioner. One being unauthorized absent from 06.11.2007 to 17.11.2007 for 11 days and has violated Regulation 64(2)(3) of Police Regulation. The other charge against the petitioner is that he was inflicted with minor penalty on 21 occasions and his unauthorized absence for 51 times have been considered in light of Rule 24 of Leave Rules and despite that he has not improved his conduct and has violated Regulation 64 (4) of Police Regulation. The third part is that on account of above, he was found unfit for the department. Perusal of records reflects that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry and it does not appear that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend 3 himself. A finding of fact has been recorded by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was subjected to minor punishment of 20-21 occasions and his absence on 51 occasions were considered in light of Rule 24 of Leave Rules. Despite of this the petitioner has not improved his conduct and again remained unauthorizedly absent for 11 days. 7. The petitioner is a member of disciplinary police force. From perusal of record it also appears that he is in the habit of remaining in unauthorized absence and for 21 occasions he was subjected to minor punishment and his unauthorized absence for 51 times have also been duly considered in light of Rule 24 of Leave Rules. It appears that the department has taken a very liberal view on the conduct of the petitioner. Despite this it does not appear that the petitioner has improved his conduct and still continuing to maintain the habit of unauthorized absence and as such the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record and this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence placed before the departmental enquiry. The law with regard to challenge in the Departmental Enquiry is no longer res integra in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612. Taking into consideration the above stated facts, this Court does not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned orders. 8. Hence in light of the above judgments, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.02.19 15:37:18 +0530