1 2026:CGHC:6026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7688 of 2019 1 - Tejlal Nishad S/o Devram Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Dihitemri, Post- Salhebhata, P.S. - Komakhan, District - Mahasamund , Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - The Police Of Police Station Rakshit Kendra, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri RK Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 03/02/2026 : 1. The petitioner was inflicted with penalty of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 14.9.2015. Being aggrieved by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.02.04 18:32:21 +0530 2 the said order, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed on 19.11.2015 and the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner had also been dismissed by the Director General of Police as barred by limitation, against which the present petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellate authority has failed to pass order in accordance with Rule 27 (2) of the CG Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966’) and the relevant provisions have also been ignored. Even the Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed summarily, which is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the provisions contained under Rule 27 (2) of the Rules, 1966 have not been complied with and the impugned order has been passed ignoring the said provisions. For the sake of brevity, clauses (a) to (c) mentioned in Rule 27 (2) read as under:- “27. Consideration of appeal.- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 3 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider - (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe;…….” 6. Careful perusal of the impugned order would show that the appellate authority i.e. the Inspector General of Police has not considered the facts of the case and wrongly held that the departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner in accordance with law. Perusal of the impugned order would further show that the relevant provisions contained under Rule 27 (2) (a), (b) & (c) have not been complied with. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.4.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Director General of Police and order dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Inspector General of Police Raipur Range deserve to be and are hereby set aside. 8. The matter is remitted to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range for consideration of appeal in accordance with law, which shall be decided by the said authority within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 9. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned shall consider the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve