1 2025:CGHC:42260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6192 of 2017 * - Ghanshyam Rajak S/o Late Shri Motilal Rajak, Aged About 35 Years Trade Constable No. 1560 Office Of Commandant, Third Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Amleshwar District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Commandant (Inquiry Officer), 3rd Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Tandon, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned charge sheet (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2, with all subsequent action taken in pursuance to impugned charge sheet. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.27 16:40:39 +0530 2 2. Mr. Krishna Kumar Tandon, learned counsel appearing the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable at Third Battalion Chhattisgarh, Armed Force, Amleshwar. He would contend that an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (d) (n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 on 07.07.2015. He would submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 07.07.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner faced the trial he was acquitted vide judgment dated 27.05.2016 by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 - Cum- Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg in Special Case No. 110/2015 by extending benefit of doubt. He would submit that order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 04.07.2016 and thereafter on 22.08.2017 article of charge was issued by respondent No. 2. He would contend that according to the provisions of Regulation 241 of Police Regulations, when a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated and he may not be punished departmentally, when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. He would submit that according to the provisions of Regulation 241, the article of charge and initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner is illegal, erroneous and bad-in-law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing the for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and he was acquitted by the concerned court extending benefit of 3 doubt and therefore, an enquiry has been initiated and article of charge is issued. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The Regulation 241 of the Police Regulations reads as under:- “241. Cases of acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated. He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, how ever the acquittal, whether in the court of original jurisdiction or of appeal was based on technical grounds. Or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General.” 6. In the present case, an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 07.07.2015 for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (d) (n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012. The petitioner was tried and finally acquitted by the competent criminal court vide judgment dated 27.05.2016 by extending benefit of doubt. Though the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 07.07.2015, but no departmental enquiry was initiated till disposal of the criminal trial and thereafter article of charge has been issued by respondent No. 2 on 22.08.2017, which is in contravention with the provisions of Regulation 241 of Police Regulations. The bare reading of Regulation 241 would make it clear 4 that if a police personnel has been acquitted from the criminal charges, he must be reinstated in service. Though in the present case, the petitioner was only placed under suspension and his suspension order was revoked way back on 04.07.2016, therefore, initiation of departmental enquiry is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and article of charge dated 22.08.2017 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti