1 (WPS No. 4545 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4545 of 2016 1 - Ashwani Markam S/o Ghasiyaram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Badbhoom, Police Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its The Secretary Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Inspector General Of Police, Range Durg, 32- Bangalow Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, District Balod Chhattisgarh 4 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06.01.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.10.2015, passed by respondent No.2, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and his order ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART 2 (WPS No. 4545 of 2016) of dismissal from service dated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.3, has been confirmed/upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal has been dismissed by the appellate authority/respondent No.2 by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure P/5), which runs contrary to Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth shall be referred to as the “CCA Rules, 1966”) and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order. 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 3 (WPS No. 4545 of 2016) 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; ” 6. A careful perusal of order dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure P/5), passed by the appellate authority would show that the appellate authority has not recorded a finding whether the procedure laid down in the rules has been complied with and, even, it has not been recorded whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence available on the record and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe. The appellate authority has recorded no finding that the petitioner’s misconduct has been proved and the punishment of dismissal is the appropriate punishment and by simply stating that there is no ground to interfere with the order of removal of the petitioner has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Moreover, the mercy petition 4 (WPS No. 4545 of 2016) of the petitioner has also been dismissed in the same manner by the Director General of Police vide order dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P/6), which is contrary to Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966. 7. In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure P/5) passed by the appellate authority/Inspector General, Range Durg is hereby set aside and, consequently, order dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure P/6) dismissing the mercy petition of the petitioner is also hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Inspector General of Police, Range Durg 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. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!