1 2025:CGHC:32482-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 464 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Patre S/o Shri Ramadhar Patre Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Sendri, Post - Jareli, Tahsil And P.S. Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police (DGP) Police Head Quarter (PHQ) Sector-19, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Police Head Quarter (PHQ), Sector-19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) O/o DIGP, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces/STF, Baghera- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Commandant Office of Commandant, 7th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces (CAF), Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 6 - Enquiry Officer/company Commander (Dog Squad) Office of Commandant, 7th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces (CAF), Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.14 18:01:42 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.07. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents. 2. I.A. No.01, an application for condonation of delay of 13 days has been filed by the appellant. 3. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the W.P. (S) No. 1853/2023 for its kind perusal. ii. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Appellant/Petitioner's Writ 3 Appeal and set aside the order dated 30/04/2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1853/2023, in the interest of justice. Iii. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the termination order dated 28/12/2010 against the Appellant/Petitioner and reinstate him in his services along with all consequential benefits, in the furtherance of Justice.” 6. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1851/2023 (Santosh Kumar Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed. 7. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that the respondent No. 5 Commandant 7th Battalion, CAF, Bhilai only appointed Inquiry Officer in the case of appellant/writ petitioner, but, not appointed presenting officer under Rule 14(5) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 so in whole departmental inquiry proceeding the respondent No. 6 Inquiry Officer play both the role of Judge as well as prosecutor so that the whole departmental inquiry procedure was vitiated. During the statement of all prosecution witnesses in the departmental inquiry procedure the respondent No. 6 Inquiry Officer did examination-in-chief of all prosecution witnesses, cross examined the appellant/writ petitioner, also 4 asked suggestive and incriminating questions so the respondent No. 6 Inquiry Officer played both the role of judge as well as prosecutor. On 19.04.2008, the appellant/writ petitioner went home after obtaining permission from the higher authorities on one day leave, but, due to some family problem and health reason, he could not join his service in stipulated time period and when he came to the office of respondent No. 5 Commandant, 7th Battalion, Bhilai, District Durg then the respondent No. 5 did not permit the appellant/writ petitioner for joining on the post of constable and orally stated that they are conducting departmental inquiry against the appellant/writ petitioner and going to terminate his services. 8. Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.1851/2023 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2025. 9. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the termination of the appellant/writ petitioner was inappropriate as Regulation 226 of the Police Regulation suggests lesser penalties for unauthorized absence, but the respondent 5 authorities opted only last recourse of any penalty i.e. termination. Regulation 226 i(a) and (iii) provides that the delinquent officer must be given a warning or admonition before imposing any penalty. It has been contended that the enquiry was ex-parte and conducted without proper notice or participation of the appellant in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It has been further contended that the Hon’ble Single Judge overlooked the procedural violations and misapplied legal principles regarding participation in inquiry proceedings before passing the impugned order because the appellate authorities acted mechanically without proper appreciation of facts or law and without considering the appellant's personal circumstances lead to dismissal from service, which was duly harsh. It has been lastly contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 11. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Lala Ram Shakya v State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition No.1991/2005, wherein this Hon'ble High Court has held that in absence of appointment of presenting officer the enquiry officer play both the role of judge as well as prosecutor, so the whole departmental enquiry procedure is vitiated and liable to be quashed/set-aside. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme 6 Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui reported in (2005) 1 LLJ 931, to buttress his submissions. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that after considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed impugned order dated 30.04.2025, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 14. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Om Prakash in Civil Appeal No.4393/2010, Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “9. In the instant case, from perusal of the record, it seems that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period of 7 about 307 days though notices were sent to him, however, despite that, he has neither appeared nor has made any application in this respect. Earlier also, he was unauthorisedly absent for which departmental inquiry was conducted and he was punished while withholding of his one increment as punishment. He also remained absent from duties for the period from 21.07.2006 till 25.07.2006 (total 05 days), and for the period 29.06.2007 till 06.07.2007 (total 06 days), which the petitioner later successfully converted the said period of absence from duty into Earned Leave. Therefore, a charge- sheet was issued to him against his unauthorised absence and for his indiscipline in respect of again and again unauthorised absence. It would be relevant to note this fact that in the entire departmental inquiry, the petitioner remained absent and has not cooperated in the department inquiry. He has not participated in the department inquiry and orders have been passed though he was having information through notice about the department inquiry. Since the petitioner has not participated in the departmental inquiry, as such the ground raised by him that the inquiry office cannot be prosecutor in the departmental inquiry on the principle of ‘one cannot be a judge for his own cause’ in opinion of this Court would not be applicable as had it been a case where in the departmental inquiry the petitioner would 8 have participated and raised this objection. Since he has remained absent in the departmental inquiry, as such the aforesaid principle would not be applicable to his case and it will not prejudice to him. Even otherwise also, earlier the petitioner has been found negligent in discharge of his duties. Out of total 5 years, he remained absent from duties for about 3 years from which it is evident that he is negligent in discharging his duties. Hence, in the final order, he was found liable for removal from the service, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as in the mercy petition while examining his case from four corners of law. It is quite apparent that the petitioner remained negligent and as such no leniency can be granted to the petitioner. He seems to be a habitual employee who remains unauthorisedly absent from his duties. 10. In view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court does not consider the present to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and hence it is dismissed.” 15. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also applying the principles laid down in the matters of Om Prakash (supra), Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra) and T.T. Murali Babu (supra), we are of the view that the learned Single 9 Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1851 of 2023 (Santosh Kumar Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 16. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu