1 2025:CGHC:56533-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 839 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan/ Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police, Govt. of C.G. Police Head Quarter Raipur C.G. District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur C.G., District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Kuldeep Padwar S/o Late Shri B.D. Padwar, Aged About 58 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police Dindori, District Madhya Pradesh 3 - Police Station Karanjiya, Through The Station House Officer, District Dindori, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State and Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.21 10:39:52 +0530 2 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.6709/2021 (Kuldeep Padwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a Constable in the Police Department on 07.08.1983 and was later promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.06.2009. The brother of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, residing at Village Paresel, Police Station Karanjiya, District Dindouri (M.P.), went missing on 13.07.2009, for which the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 sought 3 days’ leave, which was granted on the same day. He thereafter applied for 15 days’ leave, which was also sanctioned. On 05.08.2009, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 applied for 30 days’ leave, but only 5 days’ leave w.e.f. 10.08.2009 was approved; however, he remained absent till 16.09.2009, leading to his suspension on 16.09.2009. 4. On 15.09.2009, a riot erupted between two groups at Karanjiya, in which four persons died due to police firing. Several communications were issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dindouri, to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, alleging the 3 involvement of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 in the incident. An FIR bearing Crime No. 60/2009 was also registered. A magisterial inquiry was conducted, and the report dated 29.12.2009 did not find any involvement of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1. He was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 12.01.2010. 5. An article of charge along with relevant documents was served upon the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 on 04.03.2010, levelling three charges. He submitted his reply, and a full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 27.11.2010, held Charges No.1 and 2 proved. Based on the same, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service on 13.12.2010. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 before the Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 25.07.2011. In WPS No.4976 of 2011, the High Court set aside the appellate order on 31.08.2021 and remanded the matter. Upon reconsideration, the Inspector General again dismissed the appeal on 01.11.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.09.2025. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPS 4 No.6709/2021, the instant appeal has been filed by the respondents therein. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.6709/2021 is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that although the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 13.12.2010 as well as the appellate order dated 01.11.2021 and has remitted the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration within 30 days with an observation to consider the claim of arrears of salary, such a direction creates an anomalous and impracticable situation. Once both the disciplinary order and the appellate order stand quashed, there remains no operative order for the appellate authority to reconsider. Had the learned Single Judge set aside only the appellate order and directed reconsideration of the disciplinary authority’s decision, the appellate authority could have re- examined the matter. However, in the present case, the direction to reconsider becomes unworkable as the very foundation of the appellate order no longer survives. 8. It is further submitted that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 were duly proved in the departmental enquiry, after which the competent authority, upon considering the gravity of misconduct, imposed the major penalty of removal from service. It was specifically brought to the notice of the learned 5 Single Judge that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 had not only violated the service rules but was also implicated in serious criminal activities. Being a member of the Police Force, discipline and exemplary conduct were expected of him. His acts constituted grave misconduct, warranting stern disciplinary action. Therefore, the punishment of removal was fully justified, proportionate, and commensurate with the seriousness of the charges. He submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, wherein it has been consistently held that the High Court, while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226, cannot act as an appellate authority over findings of the disciplinary and appellate authorities. Interference with the quantum of punishment is permissible only when the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court. In the present case, the charges against the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 were duly proved and affirmed by the competent authorities, and the punishment awarded was neither excessive nor arbitrary. Therefore, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. As such, the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order 6 warrants no interference, as the learned Single Judge has duly considered all relevant facts, appreciated the material on record, and rendered well-reasoned findings. It is urged that the disciplinary and appellate orders suffered from serious procedural and substantive infirmities, which have been correctly addressed by the learned Single Judge, and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed in WPS No.6709/2021. 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “6. A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that an FIR No.66/2009 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 332,342, 324,307, 395, 397, 435, 427 of IPC and Section 3 & 5 of the Lok Sampatti Nuksaani Nivaran Adhiniyam was registered against the petitioner but in fact, no such FIR number was registered against the petitioner rather FIR No.60 of 2009 was registered. 7. The brother of the petitioner was missing from 13.07.2009. Initially, the petitioner was granted 3 days leave and thereafter, 15 days leave by the authorities. The petitioner again applied for 30 days 7 leave as whereabouts of his brother was not known to anyone but the authorities concerned granted leave of 5 days from 10.08.2009. At Karanjiya, agitation was going on, therefore, the petitioner could not resume his services after expiry of 5 days leave but he telephonically requested the superior authorities for extension of leave. The few letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police, Dindouri to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur/Bilaspur making certain allegations against the petitioner and thereafter, article of charge was issued along with the charge-sheet. 8. The Magisterial Inquiry was conducted by the Collector, Dindouri and report was submitted on 29.09.2009, wherein, involvement of the petitioner was not found proved. 9. The petitioner has been removed from services only on the ground that he remained unauthorized absent from services from 15.08.2009 for a considerable period but period of absence is not specifically stated either in the article of charge or in the inquiry report or in order inflicting penalty. 10.It appears that the petitioner remained absent from 15.08.2009 till issuance of order of suspension i.e. 16.09.2009 about one month and in evidence before the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has explained reasons for his absence from duty but the authorities concerned failed to consider it. 11.With regard to registration of criminal case, as informed by Mr. Sharma, till date, charge-sheet has not been filed. 8 12.Considering the fact that there is no specific allegation with regard to absence from duty for specific period against the petitioner and further there were compelling reasons for the petitioner to remain absent from services and absence was not willful rather it was properly explained, therefore, the penalty inflicted by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by Appellate Authority appears to be disproportionate looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.12.2010 and affirmed by the appellate authority dated 01.11.2021 are hereby quashed. 13.The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14.The claim of arrears of salary and other benefits shall be considered by the authority concerned. 15.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.” 12. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after meticulously examining the entire record, including the disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry report, the impugned orders, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that no ground is made out to warrant interference in the well- reasoned order under challenge. The learned Single Judge has carefully scrutinized the nature of charges, the evidence adduced 9 before the Inquiry Officer, and the findings recorded by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The conclusion that the charge of unauthorized absence lacked specificity and that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 had furnished a plausible and reasonable explanation duly supported by circumstances, particularly the missing status of his brother and the prevailing unrest at Karanjiya cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. 13. The learned Single Judge has also correctly appreciated that the punishment of removal from service, in the facts of the present case, was disproportionate, especially when the inquiry report itself did not clearly establish the duration of absence, nor did the authorities consider the mitigating factors placed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1. The observation that the absence was not willful but compelled by circumstances is supported by the record and does not suffer from any infirmity. The direction to reconsider the matter afresh and to examine the claim of arrears is thus based on sound reasoning. 14. It is a settled principle that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and interference is warranted only when the findings are perverse, the procedure is vitiated, or the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. However, equally well-established is the principle that disproportionate punishment can be interfered with when it reflects non-application of mind or 10 when relevant factors are ignored. Viewed thus, the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising such jurisdiction in the present matter. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons and having found no perversity, illegality, or procedural infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed in WPS No.6709/2021, the writ appeal filed by the State is devoid of substance and merits dismissal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet