1 2025:CGHC:13284-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 192 of 2025 Hari Narayan Kosle S/o Dhursai Aged About 70 Years Ex- Head Constable No. 791, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Accounts / Welfare), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Inspector General Of Police Range Durg, 32 Bunglow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintendent Of Police District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Superintendent Of Police District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.25 18:03:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 20/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 stands allowed and delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 2322 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the writ appellant was working as Head Constable (MT) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Durg. He was attached to the office of City Superintendent of Police, Rajhara. He has challenged the order of his attachment before the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 15 of 2002. After hearing the parties, the State Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 09.01.2002 granted interim relief to the appellant and directed the parties to maintain status-quo as exists on 03.01.2002. Pending interim order in favour of the appellant, the respondent No.2 transferred the petitioner from Durg to Rajnandgaon and relieved him exparte by Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg on 21.07.2003. In 3 the meantime, the petitioner was suspended and served with the charge sheet dated 21.06.2004. In the departmental enquiry proceeding, the petitioner was not participated and the inquiry proceeding was proceeded exparte and inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 10.05.2004. 4. It is the submission of the appellant/writ petitioner that the petitioner was not granted the subsistence allowance and thereby for want of funds he could not participate in the departmental enquiry proceeding and the exparte proceedings were drawn, which in fact is denial of opportunity to defend his case, which is violative of principles of natural justice. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not supplied the relevant documents enclosed along with the charge sheet and without considering the aforesaid facts, the exparte inquiry proceedings was concluded and report has been submitted by the inquiry officer, upon which the punishment was imposed upon the appellant/writ petitioner. 5. The respondents/State filed their reply to the writ petition with the averment that after conducting full-fledged departmental enquiry, the order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg. Before concluding the departmental enquiry, sufficient opportunity was provided to the appellant/writ petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the order of punishment by filing an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2018. The grievance of the petitioner has duly been considered by the Appellate Authority and his appeal has been dismissed on merits. The 4 petitioner has further challenged the order of punishment by filing a second appeal/representation before the Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, which was also dismissed. It is also the averment in the return filed by the State that the petitioner has been transferred from Durg to Rajnandgaon vide order dated 04.02.2003, but he did not join at Rajnandgaon and also not challenge the said transfer order dated 04.02.2003. The order of his transfer was passed by the competent authority in administrative capacity and the petitioner was bound to comply with the same. The petitioner was relieved on the same day of passing of the order of transfer, but he did not join on the transferred place, thereafter repeated notices were issued to him, but he refused to accept the notices, thereafter the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 31.10.2003 and charge sheet was issued. Even in the enquiry proceeding, the notices were issued, but he refused to accept the said notices also and then the enquiry initiated against the petitioner was proceeded exparte. At no point of time, the petitioner has raised any objection or submitted any application showing his inability. To attend the departmental enquiry proceeding for want of funds and ultimately the enquiry proceeding was concluded and punishment order was passed. There is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the departmental enquiry proceeding and order of punishment passed against him. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.11.2024 considering the adamant altitude of the petitioner that he has not joined on the place of his posting during the suspension period, refused to accept notices in the 5 enquiry proceedings and not participating in the enquiry proceeding nor sending any intimation for his non-appearance, held that he is not entitled for any relief. The said order dated 29.11.2024 is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that when the petitioner was suspended, no subsistence allowance was granted to him and for that reason, he was unable to defend his case in departmental enquiry proceedings. The request of the appellant in this regard has not been considered by the disciplinary authority before passing the order of removal of the appellant. The State Administrative Tribunal was granted interim order of status-quo on 09.01.2002, despite that the petitioner’s services were transferred from Durg to Rajnandgaon and he was suspended vide order dated 31.10.2003. There is no justification by the department for non-granting of subsistence allowance to the appellant/writ petitioner during the period of his suspension and for that reason he could not participate in the departmental enquiry proceedings and exparte proceedings were drawn and ultimately punishment order has been passed. He would also submit that Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has not been complied with and therefore the illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities in conducting the departmental enquiry as well as passing the order of termination of the petitioner from service. Learned Single Judge has also not considered that for want of funds and non-granting the subsistence allowance, the petitioner could not participate in the departmental proceeding and the entire proceedings 6 vitiates and should have allowed the writ petition instead thereof, they have dismissed the same, which is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned order and has submitted that the impugned order is well merited, which needs no interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 10. It appears form the documents annexed with the writ petition that after passing of the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 31.10.2003, he was attached to the office of Reserved Police Centre, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner has not challenged the order of his suspension and he was bound to comply with the order dated 31.10.2003 and to give joining at Reserved Police Centre, Rajnandgaon. Since, the petitioner/writ appellant neither challenged the suspension order nor joined in the office of Reserved Police Centre, Rajnandgaon, where he was posted during the suspension, subsistence allowance was not paid to him. Perusal of the order dated 31.10.2003 would show that during the suspension period, the petitioner was attached to the office of Reserved Police Centre, Rajnandgaon and during the suspension period, he will be paid the subsistence allowance in accordance with law. However, vide order dated 24.12.2003, the application for grant of subsistence allowance was rejected on the ground that he has not joined at the headquarters, where he was posted during his suspension period. The claim of the petitioner is that since the subsistence allowance was not paid to him, 7 therefore, he could not defend himself in the departmental enquiry proceeding and thus, the entire action taken by the respondents vitiates, but from perusal of the documents it reveals that the petitioner himself has not joined on the attached place i.e. Reserved Police Centre, Rajnandgaon and even he refused to accept various notices during the departmental enquiry proceedings issued to him. 11. The learned Single Judge after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the conduct of the writ petitioner and his adamant altitude not to join the attached place of his posting during the suspension period and denying the notices issued to him in the departmental enquiry proceedings and not participating the same even after affixing the notice on the door of the house of the petitioner and not sending any intimation for his non-appearance, dismissed the writ petition, in which, we do not find any palpable infirmity or illegality which warrants interference of this Court in the impugned order. 12. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved