1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3608 of 2018 1 - Vivekanand S/o Late Shri Premanand, Aged About 53 Years R/o Mother Teresa Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur, Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), 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.), Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (S.P.), Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Superintendent Of Police (Addl.S.P.)/ Enquiry Officer, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, I.U.C.A.W., Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Station House Officer, Inspector/ Presenting Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey and Mr. Rishabh Dev Sahu, Advocate For State / Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA and Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/12/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : (I) That this Hon'ble Court may also 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 set aside/quash the impugned charge sheet dated 27.7.2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to quash the impugned departmental enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner. (iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned punishment order dated 20.3.2018 passed by respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur. (v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give full payment including backwages to the petitioner of the post of Sub Inspector from 20.3.2018 till his reinstatement on the post of Sub Inspector as also the consequential seniority. (vi) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner 3 for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of litigation. 2. The petitioner who was working as Sub-Inspector in Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, CG faced a departmental enquiry by issuance of a charge-sheet dated 27.07.2016 issued by the Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.), Bilaspur Range Bilaspur, CG / respondent No. 3. Along with the petitioner, three other persons namely B. R. Nag – Inspector, B. S. Karketa – Inspector and I. M. Qureshi – Sub-Inspector were also issued with the same charge-sheet. The charges against all the delinquent employees mentioned in the charge-sheet are mentioned herein-below:- // आरोप // निरो्ቌक बी०आरो० ग तत्क ली था ्ቚभा रो पसौरो जिली रो यगढ़ वतमा था ्ቚभा रो गण्डरोदे"ही जिली बी लीदे क" निवरु्ቍ आरोप& - अप०्ቅ० 167/12 धा रो 365, 302, 201 भा देनिव था पसौरो जिली रो यगढ़ क* निवव"च क" देरो ्ቚकरोण सौ" सौ-बी-जिधात क.ली निडटे"ली ्ቚ ्቎ निकय" " क" बी व1दे ्ቚकरोण मा2 सौ-ली्ሿ करो अप" कतव्य क" ्ቚनित घोरो ली परोव ही एव- उदे सौत ्ቚदेनि8त करो पजिलीसौ रो"ग्यली"8 क* क- निडक ्ቅमा -क 64 (02) क उቤ቏-घो करो । निरो्ቌक बी०एसौ० क" रोक" ሾኋ तत्क ली था ्ቚभा रो पसौरो वतमा था ्ቚभा रो अ क जिली रो यगढ़ क" निवरू्ቍ आरोप - था पसौरो पदेस्था प क" देरो अप०्ቅ० 167/12 घो रो 365, 302, 201 भा देनिव था पसौरो जिली रो यगढ़ क* निवव"च क" देरो एफ.एसौ.एली रिरोपटे क* सौमाय परो ्ቚ नि्቎ ही"त कई ्ቚय सौ हीB करो अप" कतव्य क" ्ቚनित घोरो ली परोव ही एव- उदे सौत ्ቚदेनि8त करो पजिलीसौ रो"ग्यली"8 क* क- निडक ्ቅमा -क 64 (02) क" निवपरोत क य आचरोण ्ቚदेनि8त करो । उप निरो्ቌक निवव"क -दे तत्क ली था ्ቚभा रो पसौरो वतमा था ्ቚभा रो बीरोमाक" ली जिली रो यगढ़ क" निवरु्ቍ आरोप - था पसौरो पदेस्था प क ली मा2 अप०० 167/12 धा रो 365, 302. 201 भा देनिव क* निवव"च मा2 रो ज्य 4 न्य य लीनियक निवሺኋ ्ቚयग8 ली रो यपरो सौ" ्ቚ ्቎ निकय" गय" परो्ቌण रिरोपटे क सौ-बी-जिधात न्य य लीय मा2 तत्सौमाय मा हीB करो अप" कतव्य क" ्ቚनित घोरो ली परोव ही एव- उदे सौत ्ቚदेनि8त करो पजिलीसौ रो"ग्यली"8 क* क- निडक ्ቅमा -क 64(02) क" निवपरोत क य आचरोण ्ቚदेनि8त करो । उप निरो्ቌक आई . एमा . क रोF8 , था ्ቚभा रो पसौरो जिली रो यगढ़ क" निवरु्ቍ आरोप - था पसौरो पदेस्था प क ली क" देरो अप०्ቅ० 167/12 धा रो 365, 302, 201 भा देनिव क* निवव"च मा2 था पसौरो जिली रो यगढ़ सौ" सौ-बी-जिधात एफ. एसौ. एली. रिरोपटे क* सौमाय परो ्ቚ नि्቎ ही"त कई ्ቚय सौ हीB करो अप" कतव्य क" ्ቚनित घोरो ली परोव ही एव- उदे सौत ्ቚदेनि8त करो पजिलीसौ रो"ग्यली"8 क* कनिडक ्ቅमा -क 64 (02) क" निवपरोत क य आचरोण ्ቚदेनि8त करो । हीस्त (निवव"क -दे) पजिलीसौ माही निरो्ቌक निबीली सौपरो रो2, निबीली सौपरो निदे -क 27/07/2016 3. Thereafter, a common departmental enquiry was conducted against all four delinquent employees mentioned in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, an order of punishment dated 20.03.2018 was passed by the respondent No. 3 thereby the petitioner was demoted from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector for three years. Another delinquent B. R. Nag inspector was inflicted with a punishment of withholding of 25% of pension for one year. The charges could not be proved against two delinquent employees namely B. S. Karkatta – Inspector and I. M. Quereshi – Sub-Inspector and the departmental enquiry against them was closed. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P-8) also challenged the charge- sheet issued against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet in the instant case was issued by the respondent No. 3 who was not 5 competent to issue the charge-sheet under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. He submits that Superintendent of Police was competent to do so, in light of Rule 228 of the Police Regulations. He further submits that as a charge-sheet was issued by incompetent authority, the subsequent departmental proceedings initiated upon it and punishment imposed by the respondent No. 3 are liable to be set aside. He further submits that this issue no longer res integra in light of judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Lallan Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 4209 of 2015 dated 19.06.2018 and Narendra Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WPS No. 5200 of 2012 dated 08.05.2024. Apart from this, he submits that along with the petitioner, three other delinquent employees mentioned above were also faced the departmental enquiry in a common charge-sheet. He further submits that in order to initiate the departmental enquiry against all the delinquent employees the provisions contained in Rule 18 of Civil Services Classification and Control Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’) has not been complied with. Thus, from the very inception, the departmental enquiry was bad in law and it has been vitiated. Rule 18 of 1966 requires that two or more government servants are concerned in any case, the Governor or any other authorities competent to imposed the penalty of dismissal from service and all such government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in the common proceedings. In the case in hand, the common departmental proceedings were carried out against four delinquent employees and there is no specific order by the competent authorities who could dismissed the services of the petitioner to have such an enquiry vitiated against all the four delinquent employees. Thus, the entire departmental proceedings including the imposition of punishment is liable to be set aside. To buttress his submissions he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case 6 of WPS No. 2065 of 2015 (Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) dated 21.02.2025 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 638 of 2025 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Narendra Kumar Yadav) Judgment dated 01.09.2025. Thus, he submits that the impugned order of punishment including charge-sheet is liable to be set aside and the relief as claimed may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Ms. Shukla and Mr. Shadangi, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the respondent No. 3 is placed higher in the higher key therefore, he was competent enough to issue the charge-sheet. They further submits that as the respondent No. 3 was competent to dismissal the petitioner from service therefore, there is sufficient compliance of Rule 18 of 1966. They further submits that detailed a departmental enquiry in respect to the charges mentioned in the charge- sheet was conducted giving proper opportunity to defend to the petitioner herein, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order of punishment. They further submits that before issuance a charge-sheet the respondent No. 3 has recorded the satisfaction as to why the the common charge-sheet to four delinquent employees. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The first contention of Mr. Pandey is that the respondent No. 3 is not competent to issue the charge-sheet and it is a Superintendent of Police is authority to issue the charge-sheet. This Court in case of Lallan Singh (supra) placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Arun Prakash Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013 LawSuit (MP) 2242 and Yogesh Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others 2015 (2) MPHT 406 and also discussing in detail Regulations 228 of Police Regulations held as under:- “In view of the three authoritative decisions on the subject which is pari materia in the State of Chhattisgarh, this Court 7 has no hesitation in holding that the charge- sheet which has been issued by the IGP is without competence and is beyond his authority and contrary to the Police Regulations framed by the State of Chhattisgarh.” 7. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was issued by respondent No. 3 on 27.06.2016 and in light of the law laid down by this Court in Lallan Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it was issued by incompetent authority. The second submissions of Mr. Pandey is that Rule 18 of Rules of 1966 has not be adhere to. For ready reference, Rule 18 of 1966 is quoted herein-below:- “Common proceedings – (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. Note - If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government servants are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, any such order shall specify : (i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceeding; (ii) the penalties specified in Rule 10 which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose; and (iii) whether the procedure laid down in Rule 14 and Rule 15 or Rule 16 shall be followed in the proceeding.” 8. The provisions of 18 clearly envisages that whenever an enquiry against two or more government servants is to be conducted, the governor or any authorities competent to imposed the penalty of dismissal from 8 service on such government servants may make an order directing the disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in the common proceedings. This provisions explicitly envisages that if the authorities intend to initiate departmental action against two or more employees, an expressed order has to be passed in this regard by authorities competent to imposed for dismissal. Though it has been argued by the State Counsel that the respondent No. 3 is competent to imposed dismissal upon the petitioner thus there is a sufficient compliance of Section 14 as he has recorded satisfaction to issued charge-sheet against four persons but the rules clearly speak there has to be an order directing the disciplinary action against all of them may be taken against common proceedings. The respondents in the return has not filed any order by the competent authority i.e. IGP that common departmental action be taken against all the employees. In the case in hand, apart from the petitioner, three other delinquent employees were face the common departmental proceedings by issuing of common charge-sheet. 9. This issue has came up before this Court in case of Narendra Kumar Yadav which found in favour of the petitioner therein which has subsequently upheld by this Court in WA No. 638 of 2025. Thus in light of above, the impugned order (Annexure P-8) including the charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) cannot stand scrutiny of this Court and is liable to be and hereby set aside. Consequence to follow. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan