1 2025:CGHC:17378-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 242 of 2025 Shivnath Bhagat (Ex-Constable) S/o Lt. Shri Lundra Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Manora, Post/ P.S./ Tahsil - Manora, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General of Police C.G. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General of Police P.H.Q. Bilaspur Division, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent of Police Raigarh, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 .04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.22 14:21:34 +0530 2 2. Heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5384 of 2012 (Shivnath Bhagat vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant 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 appellant has violated regulation 64(2)(3) & 64(4) of the Police Regulation and was found unfit for the department. After a full-fledged departmental enquiry, the appellant was imposed with a punishment of removal from service. That order was also subject to challenge before the appellate authority who also dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant submitted representation dated 15.09.2008 to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh with explanation of absent, who passed an order stating that the allegation is serious and passed order of removal from service on 24.09.2008 against which he preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur range, who confirmed the order and passed order dated 25.02.2009. After which he preferred second appeal to the DGP, who too dismissed the same vide order dated 06.09.2010. Then the 3 appellant preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No. 5384 of 2012 for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2010 as well as order of the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh dated 24.09.2008, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent department has appointed Subedhar, namely, Manjulata Kujur for primary investigation against the appellant while Manjulata Kujur is a witness in the departmental enquiry proceeding, therefore, the appointment for the preliminary enquiry is bad in eyes of law. He also submits that respondents department has ignored the service period of the appellant i.e. 25 years has already been completed and during the service period the respondents department has not found any arbitrary action which is against the law as well as natural justice. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has easily accepted and explained the cause of absent from his reply dated 15.09.2008 (Annexure P/2 in the writ petition), therefore, it is a duty to the respondents department to consider sympathetically upon the appellant and the respondents department has taken major penalty upon the appellant which shows malice and prejudice nature. He further contended that the appellant is aged about 69 years who needs medical assistance and other basis needs for which he needs pension and benefits of service. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2025 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned 4 Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that three charges were leveled against the appellant, 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. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 10. From perusal of records, it transpires that there are three charges leveled against the appellant. 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 appellant 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 the Police Regulation. The third part is that on account of above, he was found unfit for the department. Perusal of records reflects that the appellant was subjected to a departmental enquiry and it does not appear that the appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity 5 to defend himself. A finding of fact has been recorded by the disciplinary authority that the appellant 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 appellant has not improved his conduct and again remained unauthorizedly absent for 11 days. 11. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that the appellant 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 appellant. Despite this it does not appear that the appellant has improved his conduct and still continuing to maintain the habit of unauthorized absence and as such the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority afÏrmed 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. In this regard, the learned Single Judge also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Others vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and in light of the above judgments, the learned Single Judge does not find any illegality and irregularity in the orders. 12. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions 6 advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan