1 2025:CGHC:33137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3841 of 2021 1. Gopal Dhruv S/o C.S. Dhruv Aged About 49 Years R/o Ramanuj Nagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Hira Lal Tiwari S/o Kawaldhar Tiwari Aged About 57 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Gali No. 1, Ward No. 1, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent Of Police, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 16.03.2021, passed by Respondent No. 1 and consequently, set aside the impugned punishment imposed upon Petitioners; and 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may also, be pleased to pass SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 19:02:07 +0530 2 any other order in favor of Petitioners as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at the relevant time, petitioner No. 1 was posted in the post of Police Inspector under the respondents at Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh, whereas, petitioner No. 2 was posted in the post of Head Constable in the same police station. He would further submit that an article of charge was issued to the petitioners with the allegation that a closure report was filed in case of accidental death. He would also submit that the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and a common inquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority. He would contend that the Inspector General of Police exercised the power of disciplinary authority and inflicted a penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 28.01.2020. He would further contend that an appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed by the Director General of Police on 16.03.2021. Mr. Singh would state that the common proceedings were drawn by the Inspector General of Police in contravention to Rule 18 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “Rules, 1966”). He would pray to allow the instant petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Shrivastava would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioners as they filed a closure report in an accidental death. He would further submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and this ground was not raised before the disciplinary authority or before the appellate authority and for the first time, this ground is being raised before this Court. He would contend that there is a concurrent 3 finding recorded by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. He would further contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Rule 18 of the Rules, 1966 deals with the Common proceedings, the same is reproduced herein-below:- 18. 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: [Provided that the powers conferred on the Governor under this rule shall in case of Judicial Officers, be exercised by the Chief Justice.] (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; (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. 6. A bare reading of Rule 18 would make it clear that when 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 4 may make an order directing that the disciplinary action against the Government servant may be taken in a common proceeding. 7. In the present case, the Inspector General of Police has exercised the power of disciplinary authority and inflicted a penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. It appears that no permission was sought either from the Governor or competent authority to draw common disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, and thus, the departmental proceedings were in contravention of Rule 18 of the Rules, 1966. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. No cost. 9. Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant