1 2025:CGHC:58265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2688 of 2023 1 - Musafir Singh S/o Birju Singh Aged About 54 Years Head Constable, R/o Ward No. 48, New Police Line, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Police Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Deepti Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent no. 2 and also subsequent proceedings, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent no. 4 and also the subsequent proceedings, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the Petitioner's candidature for the departmental promotion as per Annexure P/7, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the authority set aside the punishment of reduction to the minimum pay scale for one year, earlier imposed upon the petitioner by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26.06.2018. Respondent No. 2 further remitted the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Durg, for imposition of a major penalty after issuance of a show-cause notice and obtaining the reply of petitioner. 3. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner was serving as a Head Constable in the Police Department and, at the relevant time in 2017, was posted at Police Station–Traffic Bhilai. Pursuant to a written 3 complaint, a charge sheet was issued against him, and a departmental enquiry was initiated. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in an order dated 26.06.2018, whereby the petitioner was awarded the penalty of reduction to the minimum pay scale for one year. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No. 3, which came to be dismissed on 19.09.2018. Thereafter, he preferred a second appeal/mercy appeal before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 03.03.2020, quashed the punishment and remitted the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Range Durg, to impose a major penalty. 4. Ms. Deepti Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the appeal before respondent No. 2 was only a mercy appeal against the punishment imposed on 26.06.2018 and affirmed on 19.09.2018. She argues that respondent No. 2, without affording the petitioner any notice or opportunity of hearing, set aside the punishment and remanded the matter for imposition of a major penalty. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that a mercy appeal is not a statutory appeal, and therefore respondent No. 2 had no authority in law to quash the punishment or remit the matter for imposing a higher penalty. She further submits that as neither the department nor the disciplinary authority had filed any appeal or revision, respondent No. 2 acted without jurisdiction in enhancing the consequences of the punishment. 5. Conversely, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, submits that due opportunity was given to the petitioner during the departmental proceedings. He contends that 4 respondent No. 2, considering the seriousness of the misconduct, deemed it appropriate to remit the matter for imposition of a major penalty, and therefore the petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully examined the documents on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the punishment order was passed by respondent No. 4 on 26.06.2018. The petitioner filed a first appeal before respondent No. 3, which was dismissed on 19.09.2018. The petitioner thereafter preferred a mercy appeal before respondent No. 2, and the same was decided on 03.03.2020. 8. A perusal of the order dated 03.03.2020 indicates that respondent No. 2, while deciding the mercy appeal, quashed the order of punishment passed by respondent No. 4 and affirmed by respondent No. 3, but did so without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Significantly, a mercy appeal is not a statutory remedy. When an appeal is preferred by a delinquent employee, the appellate authority is empowered either to uphold or set aside the punishment. However, under the applicable rules/regulations, there is no provision permitting the authority to remand the matter for reconsideration or for imposing a major penalty while deciding a mercy appeal. Respondent No. 2, therefore, travelled beyond jurisdiction in remitting the case. 9. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE