2026:CGHC:7008-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 838 of 2024 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2 - Inspector General CISF, Western Sector CISF Campus, Sector 35, Kharghar, Nawi Mumbai 3 - Dy. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Bsp, Bhilai, P.O. And P.S. Bhilai, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Sr. Commandant CISF Unit Bsp, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Commandant CISF Unit Having Its Office At Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Jaswant Singh Inspector CISF Unit Having Its Office At Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus Shiv Balak Singh S/o Shri Mathura Prasad Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Village And Post Office- Barhiya, Tola Dhanraj, P.S. Barhiya, District Lakhisarai, Bihar Pin 811302 ...Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSG For Private Respondent : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.02.2026 Heard Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned DSG for the appellants, and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.18 14:44:34 +0530 Wa 838 of 2024 2 1. The appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS-3235 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein is allowed, and the writ petitioner was held entitled for reinstatement forthwith, reserving the right of the respondent authorities to proceed further, if they so want, against the petitioner from the stage of non-appointment of Presenting Officer. 2. Heard on IA-1 of 2024, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.02.2024, and after receiving the certified copy of the order, a legal opinion was sought from the appellants’ counsel on 01.04.2024, and thereafter the matter was sent to the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Head Quarter (HQ), New Delhi, for taking administrative decision. After having examined the matter, CISF HQ decided to file a review petition vide its letter dated 08.06.2024, and thereafter, Review Petition-171 of 2024 was filed by the department on 25.07.2024 for review of order dated 29.02.2024. The said Review Petition was dismissed in chamber, and again legal opinion was sought from the appellants’ counsel on 04.09.2024. The matter again travelled up to the CISF HQ, New Delhi, and vide letter dated 23.09.2024, matter was sent to the MOL&J Mumbai to examine the feasibility of filing an appeal against the order dated 29.02.2024, and the legal opinion was received from the MOL&J Mumbai on 15.10.2024, and thereafter, instant appeal was filed on 13.11.2024, which is delayed by 216 days. Wa 838 of 2024 3 4. Learned counsel prays that above mentioned reasons for delay are bona fide, which may be condoned, and the appeal be heard on merits. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to delay condonation application. 6. On due consideration, and for the bona fide reasons of delay mentioned in the application, we are satisfied, and the application IA-01 of 2024 is allowed. The delay of 216 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is heard on merits. 7. Appellants have filed the appeal with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and quash the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench Judge (Annexure A/1) and kindly uphold the decision of the appellants, in the interest of justice.” 8. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Head Constable at the CISF, Unit BSP, Bhilai. He was served with a charge-sheet on 09.12.2009 having charge of misbehaviour, and assault on appellant-6, Jaswant Singh, Inspector, CISF Unit having its Office at Bhilai. Though the writ petitioner submitted his reply dated 16.12.2009, and denied the allegations, dissatisfied with the said reply, departmental enquiry was initiated by one Ajit Singh, who was also an Inspector, and the Officer of the same rank of Mr Jaswant Singh. After enquiry, a report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 19.04.2010, who supplied the copy of enquiry report to the petitioner on 11.05.2010, and asked for his representation within 15 days. On 15.05.2010, Wa 838 of 2024 4 the writ petitioner submitted his representation. However, vide order dated 22.07.2010, punishment was imposed upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement with immediate effect on normal pension, and ¾ retirement gratuity. The appeal preferred against the order dated 22.07.2010 was dismissed by the respondent-3 on 11.09.2010, and revision was also dismissed by respondent-2 on 18.03.2011. Against the punishment order, dismissal of appeal and revision, the petitioner had filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 29.02.2024 on the ground that there was no appointment of Presenting Officer during the departmental enquiry proceeding, and therefore, punishment order was set aside, and held the petitioner entitled for reinstatement, reserving liberty to the writ appellants to proceed further, if they so want, from the state of non-appointment of Presenting Officer. Said order dated 29.02.2024 is under challenge in the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the reply submitted by the respondent/writ appellant. The Enquiry Officer, during the departmental enquiry proceeding, was appointed vide order 22.12.2009 and the order of appointment of Enquiry Officer has also been annexed along with the counter affidavit submitted by the answering respondent/writ appellant on 13.03.2015 as annexure-R2. 10. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner on the ground that no Presenting Officer was appointed, and from the statement of some of the witnesses, they were under the influence, and pressure of Jaswant Singh, writ appellant-6, and therefore, appointment of Wa 838 of 2024 5 Presenting Officer in the DE was essential. However, from the document Annexure-R2, Presenting Officer was duly appointed, and the order of punishment cannot be set aside on that ground alone. He would draw attention of this Court towards page-27 of their counter affidavit submitted on 13.03.2015 (Annexure-R2). He would further submit that the writ appeal may be allowed, and the impugned order passed in favour of the respondent may be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner supported the impugned order, and prays for dismissal of writ appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal, as well as the writ petition, and gone through the pleadings. 13. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge in Para-10 of its order observed that from the enquiry report that no Presenting Officer was appointed, and it was held that in such a situation, appointment of Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry was essential. It is necessary to notice para-10 of the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, which is reproduced hereunder: “10. In light of the above legal principles, if the facts of the present case are examined, it transpires from the enquiry report that no Presenting Officer was appointed and from the statements of some of the witnesses it is also clear that they were under the influence and pressure of Jaswant Singh. In this situation, appointment of Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry was essential.” Wa 838 of 2024 6 14. From perusal of document Annexure-R2, which has been submitted by the writ appellants in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which is annexed at page-226 as Annexure-R2 along with their counter affidavit dated 13.03.2015, it clearly reveals that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 22.12.2009 in the departmental enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner. When the specific document is there with respect to appointment of Presenting Officer, and there is pleading to that effect in para-7 of the counter affidavit of the writ appellants before the writ court, it cannot be said that no Presenting Officer was appointed in the departmental enquiry proceeding. 15. In Para-11 of the judgment, learned Single Judge has further observed that “……...Since this Court is setting aside the impugned orders on technical ground of non-appointment of Presenting Officer, this Court only directs that the petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement forthwith, ……..”, however, in view of the document Annexure-R2 submitted by the writ appellants before the writ court along with their counter affidavit dated 13.03.2015, it appears that the Presenting Officer was appointed. 16. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable on this ground alone, and it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge to decide the case afresh, keeping in view the document Annexure-R2 dated 22.12.2009, submitted by the writ appellants along with their counter affidavit dated 13.03.2015. 17. Consequently, the present writ appeal is allowed. WPS-3235 of 2014 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law. Considering that the matter pertains to disciplinary Wa 838 of 2024 7 proceedings of the year 2009, we deem it appropriate to request the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of its first listing after receipt of this order. 18. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left open to be considered by the learned Single Judge independently. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma