1 2025:CGHC:60193-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 918 of 2025 Fredrick Kerketta S/o Late Shri Francis Kerketta Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Banganga Petrol Pump Ward No. 11 House No. 472 P/s Sohagpur Distt. Shahdol Mp India. ... Appellant(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 (C.G.) 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 Superintendent Of Police (Asp) Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.11 18:51:22 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appelalnt as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred against the orders dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6674 of 2016 (Fredrick Kerketta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition was allowed and the charge-sheet along with the consequential enquiry proceedings was set aside, while reserving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the Police Regulations. 3 4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant/writ petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings pursuant to a charge-sheet dated 21.12.2015 issued by the Inspector General of Police. The allegations levelled therein pertained to dereliction of duty and misconduct in connection with certain criminal incidents reported in August, 2015. The appellant questioned the authority of the Inspector General of Police to issue the charge-sheet and contended that under the applicable Police Regulations, the competent authority to issue a charge-sheet is the Superintendent of Police. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this matter arises out of the second round of litigation. Earlier, the appellant had filed a writ appeal directly against the order passed in WPS No. 6674/2016 without availing the statutory remedy of review. The said appeal was withdrawn with liberty to seek review. The appellant thereafter filed a review petition bearing REVP No. 365 of 2025 which came to be dismissed on 10.11.2025. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire departmental enquiry stood vitiated since the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority. It is further urged that the enquiry was conducted contrary to the mandatory procedure: no Presenting Officer was appointed, the Enquiry Officer himself recorded and cross-examined the witnesses, and the appellant was denied an effective opportunity of defence. These illegalities were noted in the earlier round of litigation as well. He further submitted that though the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the charge-sheet, he erred in granting liberty to initiate 4 fresh proceedings. Reliance is placed on a subsequent Division Bench judgment in WA No. 638/2025 wherein similar liberty was set aside. It is further urged that the appellant has retired on 31.05.2022, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024 dated 19.11.2024 disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated or re-initiated after retirement. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the reasoning assigned is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Narendra Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 5200 of 2012 and other connected matters. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the entire record. 9. It is not in dispute that the issue as to whether the Inspector General of Police is competent to issue a charge-sheet has already been settled by this Court in Narendra Sharma (supra) and other matters, holding that such charge-sheets are without authority and contrary to the Police Regulations. The learned Single Judge has rightly applied the said law and quashed the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2015 along with all consequential proceedings. 10. We further find that the learned Single Judge, while quashing the charge-sheet, merely reserved liberty to the State to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the Police Regulations, if so advised. The grant of such liberty is a standard consequential direction and does not, by itself, mandate initiation of any fresh proceedings. Whether fresh 5 proceedings can in fact be initiated after retirement or whether such liberty should be acted upon are questions that would arise only if the State chooses to proceed further. Such issues cannot be a ground to interfere with the correctness of the impugned order. 11. The reliance placed on the Division Bench decision in WA No. 638 of 2025 is misplaced, as the factual context and operative directions therein are distinguishable. Likewise, the judgment in Navin Kumar Sinha (supra) pertains to initiation of proceedings after retirement. The learned Single Judge has not directed initiation of fresh proceedings; he has merely reserved liberty, which is conditional and subject to the governing legal framework. Hence, the argument is premature. 12. The review petition was also rightly dismissed, as no error apparent on the face of record was demonstrated by the appellant. The scope of review being narrow, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in declining interference. 13. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the law and facts and passed a reasoned order. The appellant has failed to make out any ground of perversity, jurisdictional error, or illegality warranting interference in this intra-Court appeal. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is found to be devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan