1 2025:CGHC:57239 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Order Delivered on : 25.11.2025 WPS No. 105 of 2023 Lalan Singh Paikra S/o Samal Sai Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Constable No. 947 And Posted In District Force, Police Line, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General of Police Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent of Police District Police Force, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. Heard Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.25 18:31:08 +0530 2 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus where to set aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the extent of imposition of punishment of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect and also treating of the period of dismissal of the petitioner as no work no pay. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus where to direct to the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to provide the petitioner all the consequential benefit on account of reinstatement of the petitioner's services as well as provide seniority by adding the name of the petitioner in the gradation list at the appropriate place. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus where to direct to the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's candidature for promotion from Constable to Head Constable and lieu of promotion, provide the petitioner increment of salary and time pay scale. 10.5 That, any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court 3 deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner is presently employed as a Constable in the Reserve Police Line, Surajpur. He was originally appointed as a Constable in the District Police, Surguja (now Surajpur) on 08.09.2008 by the Superintendent of Police, Surguja. After successful completion of prescribed training, he was posted to Police Station Surajpur. On 02.11.2009, when the Petitioner’s wife fell ill and was admitted to hospital, the petitioner applied for leave. His Commanding Officer, SI Baijnath Sai Paikra, refused the leave on the ground of shortage of force and, contemporaneously, lodged a complaint against the Petitioner alleging misconduct specifically that the petitioner was drunk and had misbehaved. 4. Pursuant to that complaint, the petitioner was suspended on 04.11.2009 and a departmental enquiry was instituted on 11.12.2009 to examine the allegations made by Sub Inspector Baijnath Sai Paikra. The departmental enquiry was concluded and, by an order dated 09.05.2010, respondent No. 4 (the disciplinary/appointing authority) terminated the petitioner’s services from the police force. The petitioner appealed the dismissal to respondent No. 3. That appeal was rejected by respondent No. 3 on 09.09.2010 (the appellate rejection), without assignment of reasons. (The appellate action is the subject-matter of subsequent challenge before this Court.) 4 5. The petitioner challenged the appellate rejection before this Court by way of Writ Petition WPS No.7408/2010 (Lalan Singh Paikra v. State of Chhattisgarh). On 26.07.2021, this Court disposed of that writ petition by setting aside the appellate order and directed respondent No. 3 to hear and dispose of the Petitioner’s appeal afresh within 60 days. 6. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner filed additional submissions before Respondent No. 3 pointing out procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings, specifically non-compliance with Rule 14(5)(c) and Rule 14(8) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘Rules of 1966’) and relied upon judicial precedents. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, by the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, allowed the petitioner’s appeal to the extent of reinstating him in service but commuted the punishment of dismissal to withholding of one increment (non-cumulative). Notwithstanding reinstatement, the period during which the petitioner had been terminated was treated as “no work, no pay.” 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 (and by the manner in which the departmental proceedings and appellate process were conducted), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, including restoration of his service benefits and other consequential reliefs. 5 8. Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, presently working as Constable in the Reserve Police Line, Surajpur, was initially appointed on 08.09.2008 and after completion of training was posted in District Surajpur. On 02.11.2009, when the petitioner’s wife was hospitalized, he sought leave from his Commanding Officer, Sub-Inspector Baijnath Sai Paikara, which was denied on the ground of shortage of force, and thereafter a false complaint was made alleging that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, misbehaved, abused, caught hold of the collar of the complainant officer and threatened him. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Upadhyay that pursuant to the said complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated; however, the entire enquiry stands vitiated as no Presenting Officer was appointed, contrary to the mandatory requirements under Rule 14(5)(c) and Rule 14(8) of the Rules of 1966, and the Inquiry Officer assumed the role of investigator, prosecutor and judge. It is further urged that no medical examination was conducted to establish the allegation of intoxication, and the prosecution witnesses, namely Constables Ram Prasad, Shivmurat Kindo and Arvind Kumar as well as defence witness Vikas Patel did not support the charges. Despite absence of cogent evidence, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 09.05.2010. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 06.09.2010 in a cursory and non-speaking manner, which resulted 6 in the petitioner approaching this Court in WPS No. 7408/2010; this Court, by order dated 26.07.2021, set aside the appellate order and directed reconsideration. It is further submitted that although the petitioner, in his additional submissions, specifically pointed out violation of Rule 14(5)(c) and Rule 14(8), respondent No. 3, by the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, merely reinstated the petitioner, but maintained adverse findings by imposing the major penalty of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect and treating the entire period from 09.05.2010 to 29.09.2021 as ‘no work no pay’. 10. Mr. Upadhyay argued that the reasoning of respondent No. 3 that appointment of a presenting officer was not the practice prior to issuance of Circular dated 14.09.2018 under the Police Regulations is wholly untenable, as the petitioner is governed by the Rules of 1966, which mandate compliance with Rule 14. It is contended that non-appointment of a presenting officer goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the enquiry in its entirety, and therefore no penalty, whether dismissal or stoppage of increment, could have been imposed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of seniority, time-scale and promotional benefits at par with similarly situated employees. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in WPS No.1227/2016 (Surendra Ramteke v. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 12.08.2024 to buttress his submissions. 7 11. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that all allegations levelled by the petitioner against the answering respondents anywhere in the entire petition are unequivocally denied. He further submits that the present petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of any substance and liable to be dismissed at the very threshold, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate infringement of any legal or fundamental right so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the impugned appellate order dated 29.09.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3/Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, clearly records a categorical finding that the petitioner, in an inebriated condition, abused the Officer-in-Charge Brijnath Sai Paikra in filthy language, held his collar, and threatened to shoot him. Such conduct amounts to grave indiscipline and gross dereliction of duty, constituting violation of Para 64(4) and 64(11) of the Police Regulations. After considering the material available on record, the disciplinary authority modified the departmental enquiry order dated 05.09.2010 and reinstated the petitioner, yet, keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct, imposed the penalty of withholding one future increment without cumulative effect. The settlement of the suspension period as directed in the earlier order dated 09.05.2010 was maintained, and the period from the 8 dismissal of the petitioner till reinstatement was rightly treated as ‘No Work No Pay’. 12. It is therefore submitted by Mr. Tamaskar that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, interim or otherwise. The contentions urged in the writ petition are baseless, bereft of merit and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned State counsel lastly submits that the present petition suffers from gross delay and laches, inasmuch as the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 has been challenged after nearly one and a half years, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Hence, on this ground also, the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the material available with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 14. In WPS No. 1227/2016 (Surendra Ramteke v. State of Chhattisgarh), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to examine an identical issue where the disciplinary proceedings were conducted without appointment of a Presenting Officer. After analysing Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, (2005) 1 LLJ 931, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. 9 Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Court has held that the appointment of a Presenting Officer is not an empty formality but a mandatory procedural safeguard. 15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surendra Ramteke (supra) specifically observed that in the absence of a Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer assumes the dual role of presenting the case of the department as well as adjudicating the charges, resulting in a clear violation of Rule 14(5)(c) and Rule 14(8) of the Rules of 1966. Such a procedure is inherently unfair and offends the basic principles of natural justice. The Court held that the delinquent employee is entitled to full and effective cross- examination of departmental witnesses, which becomes impossible when the Inquiry Officer himself takes over the role of the prosecutor. It was further held that even if the employee has not explicitly objected to the absence of a Presenting Officer during the enquiry, the obligation to conduct a fair enquiry lies upon the Disciplinary Authority, and failure to comply with the mandatory procedure vitiates the entire proceedings. Non- compliance with the statutory Rules cannot be cured on the ground of administrative practice or convenience. Lastly, this Court ultimately held that the enquiry conducted without a Presenting Officer is per se illegal, stands vitiated for breach of mandatory provisions, and any punishment imposed on the basis of such an enquiry cannot be sustained. The Court accordingly 10 quashed the punishment and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. 16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner stands vitiated on multiple foundational grounds. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (supra) has categorically held that an Inquiry Officer cannot assume the role of a Presenting Officer, as such a practice violates the mandatory safeguards embodied in Rule 14 of the applicable service rules and offends principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the admitted position is that no Presenting Officer was appointed, and the Inquiry Officer proceeded to marshal the evidence himself thereby combining the roles of investigator, prosecutor and adjudicator, which squarely attracts the ratio of Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (supra). 17. Further, in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized that an employee must be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the evidence led by the department. The record in the present matter discloses that the prosecution witnesses did not support the charges, no medical evidence was produced to establish intoxication, and yet the Inquiry Officer proceeded mechanically to hold the charges proved without any legally admissible material thereby rendering 11 the enquiry per se unsustainable in light of the law laid down in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). 18. The Constitution Bench in Kharak Singh (supra) has reiterated that fairness is an essential facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and any State action which is arbitrary, unreasonable or procedurally unfair cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The petitioner’s enquiry, conducted in breach of mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 14(5)(c) and Rule 14(8) of the Rules of 1966, culminating in a dismissal order later modified without addressing these defects, clearly falls foul of this constitutional mandate. 19. Having considered the rival submissions and upon meticulous examination of the record of the disciplinary proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner had specifically raised before the Appellate Authority the foundational objections relating to violation of Rule 14(5)(c) and Rule 14(8) of the Rules of 1966, including the absence of any Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer assuming the roles of investigator, prosecutor and adjudicator. These objections strike at the very root of the enquiry and, as held in Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (supra), Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) and Kharak Singh (supra) such a procedure vitiates the fairness of the enquiry itself. These mandatory rules were neither considered nor dealt with by the Appellate Authority. 12 20. The Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, merely reinstated the petitioner and imposed a modified penalty of withholding one increment non-cumulatively, without rendering any independent reasoning as to the statutory violations highlighted or the legal submissions advanced by the petitioner. The impugned order is, therefore, a non-speaking and mechanical affirmation. As held in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Others (1973) 2 SCC 836 and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and reiterated by this Court in WPS No.1825/2005, even an appellate order of affirmance must disclose reasons indicating conscious application of mind. An order bereft of reasons violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. 21. The Court also notes that no medical examination was conducted to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was intoxicated. The prosecution witnesses did not support the core allegations. These aspects were not addressed either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority notwithstanding the petitioner’s express submissions. The finding of intoxication, which formed the basis of the gravest allegation, is thus unsupported by any scientific evidence. The Appellate Authority’s silence on these significant deficiencies further reinforces the arbitrary nature of the impugned order. 13 22. The justification advanced by the respondents that prior to issuance of the Circular dated 14.09.2018 appointment of a Presenting Officer was not the practice, is wholly untenable. The petitioner is governed by the Rules of 1966, and compliance with Rule 14(5)(c) and 14(8) was mandatory irrespective of any subsequent circulars. Administrative “practice” cannot override statutory rules. The law laid down in WPS No.1227/2016 squarely applies, wherein this Court has held that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer vitiates the enquiry. 23. In the backdrop of these procedural violations, absence of evidence, non-speaking nature of the appellate order, and failure to consider specific statutory objections, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 cannot be sustained. The penalty imposed therein, including the treatment of the entire period from 09.05.2010 to 29.09.2021 as “No Work No Pay”, is founded upon an enquiry that stands fundamentally vitiated. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned appellate order dated 29.09.2021 is set aside. The entire disciplinary proceedings, including the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 09.05.2010, stand vitiated for non- compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards and violation of natural justice. 14 25. As a consequence, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including restoration of seniority, continuity of service, increments, and full salary for the period wrongly treated as “No Work No Pay”. The respondents are directed to compute and release all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. Needless to say that the respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 and principles of natural justice. 27. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 07.11.2025 25.11.2025 ------ 25.11.2025