1 2025:CGHC:54520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 365 of 2025 1 - Fredrick Kerketta S/o Late Shri Francis Kerketta Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Banganga Petrol Pump Ward No. 11 House No. 472 Police Station And Tehsil Sohagpur Distt. Shahdol M.P. India. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan P/s Post Rakhi New Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (Dgp) ((Phq) Raipur, Near Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya P/s Post Rakhi New Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police (Sp) Baikunthpur Distt. Korea (C.G.) 5 - Inquiry Officer, Additional Supritendent Of Police (Asp) Surajpur Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advcoate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/11/2025 2 Challenge in this review petition is to an order dated 14.08.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 6674 of 2016 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and charge-sheet issued against the petitioner and consequential departmental proceedings against him were set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the Police Regulation, if they so desire. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the service on 31.05.2022. After retirement relationship of employee – employer is no more between the petitioner and the respondent. After retirement of the petitioner, the respondent cannot initiate department enquiry against the petitioner. Liberty has been granted in favour of the respondents to initiate proceedings after the retirement. Therefore, review application has been filed and prays that the impugned order sofar as it grants liberty in favour of the respondent to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with the Police Regulations, if they so desire be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission and submits that no case of review is made out. The writ petition was allowed on technical grounds and this Court has only granted to liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance to the Police Regulations. There is no error apparent on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal on record indicates that against the impugned order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was registered as WA No. 693 of 2025 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Division Bench reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise his grievances before the appropriate Forum. Therefore, it appears that this review petition has been filed. This Court while allowing the writ petition, only granted liberty to the respondents to initiate 3 proceedings in accordance with the Police Regulation, if so desires. This Court does not find any error apparent on record warranting interference by this Court in its review jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, this review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan