1 (WPS No. 2611 of 2015) 2025:CGHC:6633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2611 of 2015 1 - K. D. Prabhakar S/o. Shri Jodhiram Prabhakar Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Inspector, R/o. Devi Nagar, Jarhabhata, Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Office Of The Inspector General Of Police, Sarguja Range, Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendant Of Police, Office Of The Superintendant Of Police, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Police, Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 05.02.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure P/11), passed by respondent No.2, ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.10 11:08:30 +0530 2 (WPS No. 2611 of 2015) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent No.3, imposing the penalty of reduction in the amount of salary of the petitioner equal to the amount of one increment for one year and recovery of price of government mainpack set from his salary, upon the petitioner, has been confirmed/upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P/9), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Surguja, Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of reduction in the amount of salary of the petitioner equal to the amount of one increment for one year and recovery of price of government mainpack set from his salary, has been dismissed by the appellate authority/respondent No.2 by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure P/11), which runs contrary to Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth shall be referred to as “CCA Rules, 1966”) and, as such, impugned order dated 25.06.2013, as well as order of punishment dated 21.02.2011 are liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 (WPS No. 2611 of 2015) 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the impugned orders are strictly in accordance with law and, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be profitable to notice Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which reads as under :- “27. Consideration of appeal.- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider – (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record ; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; ” 4 (WPS No. 2611 of 2015) 6. It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid Rule 27(2) that while deciding the appeal of the petitioner herein, none of the requirements for consideration of appeal were complied with by the appellate authority and his appeal was dismissed, which is not a correct way to decide an appeal. The appeal of the petitioner ought to have been considered on merits as mandated in Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which apparently has not been done in this case. 7. In that view of the matter, order dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure P/11) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, New Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh for considering the appeal of the petitioner afresh in light of Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!