1 2025:CGHC:50707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1844 of 2018 1 - Deman Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Baratu Ram Chandrakar, Aged About 54 Years R/o Kuru Area, Quarter No. 57, Police Line Rajnandgaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Office Of Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.), 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (S.P.), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Additional Superintendent Of Police / Enquiry Officer, I.U.C.A.W. Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Pitambar Gilharea, Inspector / Presenting Officer, Aadim Jati Kalyan Thana, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 10/10/2025 Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal. ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the whole departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of it being in violation of CCA Rules, 1966 as also the Police Regulations, 1861. iii) That this Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to post the petitioner in Police Station – Jalbandha, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) iv) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of litigation. 2. Facts of this case is that the petitioner was posted as Head Constable in Police Chowki -Jalbandha, Distt. – Rajnandgaon (CG), in some matter, complaint was made by the petitioner against Sub-Inspector Pramod Amaltas, Constable Bhuneshwar Kumar Verma and Constable Fuleshwar Verma before respondents 3 and 4 and thereafter, respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police, Distt. 3 Rajnandgaon conducted a preliminary enquiry in the said matter and issued a joint charge sheet against the aforesaid police personnel. Though the petitioner submitted reply to the said charge sheet but respondent No.4/S.P., Distt. Rajnandgaon being not satisfied with the said reply appointed respondent No.5 as enquiry officer and respondent No.6 as presenting officer and directed a departmental enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner and other delinquent employees and submit report. Statement of some of the prosecution witnesses were recorded by respondent No.5 and respondent No.6. The petitioner gave list of defence witnesses and sought certain documents for his defence from respondent No.5.On 13/09/2017, respondent No.5 called the prosecution witnesses 2 to 7 for their statement and also called the petitioner for cross examination of these witnesses but on that day, respondent No.5 was not present and Reader of respondent No.5 recorded statement of the witnesses. As the copy of those statement were not supplied to the petitioner, he made complaint before respondent No.4/S.P., Rajnandgaon for removal of respondent No.5. Hence, against the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, the petition has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Head Constable No.478 with the respondent/Police department. He submits that a charge sheet dated 19/05/2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued against the petitioner and 3 other delinquent employees. He submits that according to Rule 18 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘Rules of 1966’) no common charge sheet could be issued against two or more employees. Therefore, there is a violation of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966. Apart from this, he submits that the petitioner during the course of enquiry demanded certain documents which have not been provided to him, which is also violation of principles of natural justice as in the absence of such documents, the petitioner would not be able to take proper defence in the enquiry. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed and the relief as claimed may be granted. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 postulates that a departmental enquiry is required to be initiated against two or more persons, the Governor or any authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order 4 directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in common proceedings. In the case in hand, before issuance of charge sheet, the Inspector General of Police, Durg had granted permission to initiate the common departmental proceedings against the petitioner and other delinquent employees. The same is filed as Annexure R/1. Therefore, she submits that the submission of counsel for the petitioner holds no water. Apart from this, she submits that if any document sought by the petitioner is not supplied, that would give him a ground to challenge the same if any punishment order is passed against him. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Admittedly, Annexure P/1 is the charge sheet which was issued against the petitioner and other delinquent employees. The main crux of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 prohibits the respondents to issue common charge sheet. For ready reference, Rule 18 is quoted herein below – “18. (1) Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. (2) ****** ****** ******* *******” 7. Perusal of Annexure R/1 clearly indicates that higher officials i.e. I.G.Police, Durg range granted permission to the Superintendent of Police to issue common charge sheet and conduct departmental enquiry and therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to this Court and liable to be rejected. 8. The second submission with regard to non-supply of documents which the petitioner demanded. In that regard, the petitioner may make application during the course of enquiry and demand any document and the enquiry officer would take decision upon it in accordance with law. With this observation, this writ petition is finally disposed off. Interim order dated 05/04/2018 stands vacated. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.15 10:48:33 +0530