1 2025:CGHC:38560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8406 of 2022 * - Shailesh Kumar Singh S/o Bir Bahadur Singh Aged About 32 Years Ex- Constable (No 37), E-Company, First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head Quarter-Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Commandant, First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to set aside/quash the impugned the Order dated 27.07.2021 issued by the Commandant, First Battalion, CAF, Bhilai (ANNEXURE P/1); Order dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Inspector General of Police, CAF, Raipur (ANNEXURE P/2) as well as Order dated Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.07 19:48:57 +0530 2 13.09.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur (ANNEXURE P/3). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to direct to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with back wages and all the consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners. 2. Mr. Sushil Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Constable (GD) under E Company, First Battalion, CAF, Bhilai, Camp- Police Line, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). He would further submit that while the petitioner was posted at that place, an FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC was registered against the petitioner on 06.05.2020. The petitioner was arrested and he remained in jail for a considerable period. The article of charge was issued against the petitioner on account of the registration of FIR by the Department on 14.07.2020. A full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted and an order of dismissal from services was passed by respondent No.4 on 27.07.2021. He would contend that the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the same was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 04.03.2022. He would further contend that the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, District Durg acquitted the petitioner from charges vide judgment dated 24.06.2022. He would state that the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2022. He would also state that according to the provisions of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, 1861 (for short ‘the Police Regulation 3 241’), after clean acquittal, the petitioner, who was constable, is entitled to reinstatement in the service. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.83/2016 wherein it is held that “Police Constable is entitled to be reinstated as a matter of right by Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations on clean acquittal”. He would submit that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have reinstated the petitioner in service by virtue of the Police Regulation 241. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sushil Dubey. Ms. Shukla would submit that though the petitioner has been acquitted, it is nowhere stated that his acquittal was honorable. She would further contend that the appropriate authority has already decided the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. She would also submit that there are concurrent findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authorities. She would further submit that if the acquittal of the petitioner is not honourable, he would not get the benefit of the Police Regulation 241. She would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC on 4 06.05.2020. The petitioner was arrested by the police, thereafter the article of charge was issued and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. After a full-fledged departmental inquiry, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on the petitioner by respondent No.4 vide order dated 27.07.2021. A departmental appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner was acquitted by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) vide judgment dated 24.06.2022. 6. A perusal of the judgment would show that the petitioner has been given a clean acquittal by the concerned Court. 7. The petitioner thereafter preferred a mercy appeal before respondent No.2 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2022 by respondent No.2. 8. Police Regulation 241 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, however 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." 9. From a bare reading of Police Regulation 241, it is quite vivid that if a constable has been given a clean acquittal by the competent Criminal Court, he would be entitled to reinstatement in the services. 10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paras 8,9,18 & 20 held as under:- 5 “8. In order to consider the plea as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 241 of the said Regulations which states 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, however 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." A careful perusal of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations would show that it is an exception to the rule applicable to the police force providing that once an employee has been acquitted by the criminal court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service and he may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constituted the sole ground of punishment. However, Regulation 241 also carves out a caveat that if the order of acquittal is 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. 18.In view of the finding recorded herein-above, charges in criminal trial and departmental proceeding are substantially one and same. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhagat, learned State counsel, that charges framed against the petitioner i.e. based on departmental proceeding and criminal trial are different, is hereby rejected. 20.Accordingly, the order dated 13-4-2015 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 9-12- 2015 passed by the appellate authority, both, are set aside and consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 7-4-1995 terminating the services of the petitioner, is also hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential service benefits except back-wages. However, the issue of back-wages will be considered by the 6 competent authority in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to make submission that he is entitled for full back- wages.” 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the provision of Police Regulation 241 and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra), in the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 2 committed an error of law in rejecting the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 13.09.2022 is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application claiming therein arrears of salary in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules before the competent authority and the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation so made within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent extracted herein-above. 13. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti