1 (WPS No. 2764 of 2015) 2025:CGHC:6633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2764 of 2015 1 - Moti Lal Shukla S/o Shri Ram Prasad Shukla Aged About 52 Years Posted As Sub Inspector, City Kotwali, Police Station City Kotwali, Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund 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 Mahandi 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, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendant Of Police Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Superintendant Of Police Balrampur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer Police Kusmi, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.10 11:08:29 +0530 2 (WPS No. 2764 of 2015) SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 05.02.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.10.2013 (Annexure P/11), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has been dismissed and order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3, imposing the penalty of deduction of one year increment with cumulative effect for one year upon the petitioner, has been confirmed/upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Surguja, Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with penalty of deduction of one year increment with cumulative effect for one year, has been dismissed by the appellate authority/respondent No.2 by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 23.10.2013 (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 23.10.2013, as well as order of punishment dated 01.08.2012 are liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 (WPS No. 2764 of 2015) 3. 3 (WPS No. 2764 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. 2764 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 23.10.2013 (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!