1 2025:CGHC:9255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2065 of 2015 1 - Narendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shani Ram Yadav Aged About 30 Years War Earlier Posted As Police Constable Police Line Mahasamund, District Mahasamund R/o Parwati Nagar, Near Vidya Jyoti School Gudhiyari, Raipur, PO And PS Gudhiyari Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Headquarter Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgar 3 - The Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Pandey and Ms. P.S. Nikita, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 21/02/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief (s)- 2 “10.1 To set-aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent Director General of Police Chhattisgarh Raipur; 10.2 To quash the impugned order dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the respondent Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur; 10.3 To quash the impugned termination order of service Dated 22.08.2013 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the respondent Superintendent of Police Mahasamund; and 10.4 To direct the respondent authorities to give effect to the order dated 20.06.2014 (Annexure-P/9) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, thereby only the order of recovery of amount of lost Rifle is to be recovered from the petitioner; and 10.5 To grant any other relief (s) / writ (s), order (s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was working as Constable No.365 at Police Station – Mahasamund. He along with other Head Constables i.e. Head Constable No.245 Alexius Minj, Constable no.315 Deepak Vidani, Constable No.364 Sanjeet Singh and Constable No.357 Suryakant Singh Thakur were served with a charge sheet with charges as mentioned herein below - (1) आर्ቌक काሰ क 365 नरन््ቖ या दव, आर्ቌक काሰ क. 357 सुयाक त िሺसुह आर्ቌक काሰ क 264 सुजी#त िሺसुह,आर्ቌक काሰ क 315 द$पक विवद न# ቛኋ र :- 01-दिदन क 24.01.2013 क, ቚኋ त. वि/न अनाሰवित ाሰच सुर्ቌ ቐ኏3टी$ ्ቝल छो,ड़कर रቌኌ्ቌत क न््ቖ ाሰह सुाሰसुद ाሰ: आाሰद दिदया वि/न / ल -/ ल आኚᮖसु एኚᮖयानशन जीाሰ कर कतब्या क ቚኋवित घा र उद सु#नत /रतन । 02-ाሰह सुाሰद नक्सुल ቚኋभा विवत जिजील ह,न क / वजी3द दिदन क 24.01.2013 कE र विF ाሰ: गणतF दिदवसु सुाሰ र,ह ्ቝल मिाሰन# स्टीविKयााሰ ाሰच कE सुर्ቌ ग K कE ቐ኏3टी$ गभा#रत प3वक एव सुतक त प3वक न कर गLरजिजीኚᮖाሰद र# प3वक ቐ኏3टी$ करन , जिजीसुक परिरण ाሰस्वरूप 01 इंसु सु र याफल /टी नኚᮖ/र 42 एव 20 नग क रतसु कE च,र# ह,न जीLसु# गभा#र घाटीन घादिटीत ह,न कE ቝኌ्ቝवित विन቞ኌाሰत 3 ह,न , जिजीसुसु आाሰ जीनत ाሰ: पलिलसु कE छोविव धू3मिाሰल ह,न । (2) ቚኋधू न आर्ቌक काሰ क 245 अलकलिसुयासु िሰाሰजी ቛኋ र .- दिदन क 24.01.2013 क, गणतF दिदवसु सुाሰ र,ह ्ቝल मिाሰन#स्टीविKयााሰ ाሰच कE सुर्ቌ ग K ቚኋभा र# क रूप ाሰ: ग ईसु चWविकग क दXर न आኚᮖसु एኚᮖयानशन चक नह# करन एव ग K आर्ቌकY कE ल परव ह# / /तZ सुक्त विनद[श न दकर कतब्या क ቚኋवित घा,र उद सु#नत /रतन । 3. Reply was submitted by the petitioner which was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and other delinquent employees. Statement of the witnesses were recorded during the departmental enquiry and documents were also exhibited. Report of departmental enquiry was also supplied to the petitioner who submitted his reply and ultimately vide order dated 22/08/2013 Superintendent of Police (respondent No.4) terminated the Head Constable No.245 Alexius Minj, Constable no.315 Deepak Vidani and the present petitioner. A major punishment of demotion on minimum pay scale of the Constable for two years was imposed upon Constable No.357 Suryakant Singh Thakur and Constable no.364 Sanjeet Singh. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 16/01/2014 affirming the order of termination passed by respondent No.4 and a revision petition was also filed before respondent No.2 / DGP against the order passed by the IGP which was also dismissed by it vide its order dated 19/01/2015. These three orders are subject to challenge before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the petitioner, other delinquent employees namely Alexius Minj and Deepak Vidani have challenged their termination order before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry against all the delinquent employees were conducted and a notice to initiate such departmental enquiry against all the delinquent employee as required under Rule 18 of Civil Services Classification and Control Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’) has not been complied with, therefore, from the very inception, the departmental enquiry was bad in law and it has vitiated the same. He further submits that no presenting officer was appointed in the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer has acted as a presenting officer and also examined and cross-examined the petitioner 4 and the witnesses which also vitiates the departmental enquiry. He further submits that the delinquent employee Alexius Minj who was also proceeded with the petitioner in the departmental enquiry preferred a petition i.e. WPS No.821/2014 against his termination which was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 02/05/2024. Likewise, the delinquent employee Constable No.315 Deepak Vidani also filed writ petition No.3326/2015 challenging the same departmental enquiry which was also allowed by this Court vide order dated 26/06/2024 and their termination was set aside and they were directed to be reinstated in service. He submits that the issue with regard to non-appointment of the presenting officer and enquiry officer acting as presenting officer is no longer res integra in the light of judgment of this Court in WPS No.1166/2011 passed on 01/10/2018 wherein this Court has held that if the enquiry officer acts as a presenting officer, the enquiry would be vitiated. The said order was subject to challenge by the State before the Division Bench in W.A. No.500/19 and the writ appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed vide judgment dated 31/08/2021 affirming the order passed by this Court in WPS No.1166/2011. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in W.A.No.362/2023 passed on 12/09/2023 wherein also the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court approved the said legal issue. He further submits that the order of the writ petition of the other delinquent employees proceeded with the petitioner has not been challenged by the State Government, the same would apply in the case of the petitioner also, therefore, the writ petition may be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel submits that looking to the serious nature of charges before the petitioner, a full fledged departmental enquiry was conducted. Evidence were recorded and proper opportunity to defend himself was afforded to the petitioner and the grounds which have been raised have never been raised have never been raised in the departmental enquiry, therefore, no interference is warranted. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the writ petitions filed by other delinquent employee who were proceeded along with the petitioner in the departmental enquiry have been allowed and they were directed to be reinstated in service and as per instructions, the appeal has not been preferred by the State against those orders. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5 7. The petitioner has not challenged the departmental enquiry on the ground that during the course of departmental enquiry, he was not afforded opportunity of hearing on merits of the case. Challenge is on three counts. Firstly, the Rules of 1966 have not been strictly adhere to, secondly, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer are one and the same and the enquiry officer has examined and cross-examined the witnesses including cross examination of the petitioner and thirdly, the other delinquent employee who were proceeded in the departmental enquiry along with the petitioner have succeeded in their writ petitions and their termination orders were set aside and therefore, the judgment in their case would follow in the case of the petitioner. 8. The perusal of record indicates that a joint charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and other delinquent employees. A departmental enquiry was also conducted against them. Three delinquent employees were punished with major penalty of termination from service and the other two employees were awarded with different major punishment of demotion on minimum pay scale of the constable of minimum pay of two years. Record also reflect that the other delinquent employees Alexius Minj and Deepak Vidani preferred the above writ petitions and those writ petitions were allowed on the ground that there is violation of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966. For ready reference, Rule 18 is quoted herein below - “Common proceedings – (1) Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. Note - If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government servants are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, any such order shall specify : (i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceeding; 6 (ii) the penalties specified in Rule 10 which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose; and (iii) whether the procedure laid down in Rule 14 and Rule 15 or Rule 16 shall be followed in the proceeding.” 9. Therefore, as the other delinquent employees have been granted relief by this Court in WPS No.821/2014 and WPS No.3326/2015 and as such, no appeal has been preferred against those orders, the orders have attained finality. It is not in dispute that they have also proceeded the petitioner with the departmental enquiry, therefore, the law laid down by this Court in those writ petitions would squarely apply in the case of the petitioner also. Apart from this, it has to be seen that the enquiry officer was also the presenting officer and it is not permissible in the light of judgment of this Court in WPS No.1166/2011 and similar legal position has been enumerated by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.362/2023. 10. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s case cannot be segregated with the case of Alexuis Minj and Deepak Vidani and also deserve the same relief which have been granted to them. Therefore, the impugned orders Annexure P/1, Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 are set aside and quashed. The petitioner is re-instated in service with all service benefits. Since the writ petition is allowed on technical grounds, State would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner if so advised in accordance with law. 11. No order as to cost. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.03.03 16:26:43 +0530