1 Reserved on – 03.03.2026 Delivered on- 15.06.2026 Uploaded on-15.06.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2633 of 2021 Bhuneshwar Bhardwaj S/o Shri Agnu Ram Bhardwaj Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Churegaon , Post Bhanpuri (Borgaon), Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range , Lal Bagh Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police South Bastar Dandewada Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. RCS Deo, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “i. Kindly quash the impugned Order dated Order dated 15/06/2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (ANNEXURE P/1) ii. Kindly quash the impugned Order dated 26/10/2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur rejecting the mercy appeal (ANNEXURE P/2) iii. Kindly quash the impugned Order dated 04/02/2019 passed by the respondent no.3 Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range (ANNEXURE P/3) HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.06.15 18:03:45 +0530 2 iv. Kindly quash the impugned Order 30/04/2018 passed by the respondent no.4 Superintendent of Police, South Bastar Dantewada. (ANNEXURE P/4) v. To kindly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including entire back wages. vi. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that The petitioner was appointed as a Special Police Officer (SPO) in 2009 and after successful completion of training, was appointed as Assistant Constable and joined at Police Line Karli, Police Station Kotwali on 03.02.2012. He discharged his duties diligently in core Naxalite areas. On 02.04.2018, while posted at Police Station Farasgaon, there was a delay of about half an hour in joining duty as the petitioner was taking lunch. Though he explained the reason to Head Constable Rohit Baghel, the Station House Officer, allegedly due to personal animosity, submitted a false report to the Superintendent of Police alleging misbehavior by the petitioner. Without conducting any preliminary inquiry or departmental enquiry, the Superintendent of Police issued a show-cause notice on 02.04.2018 and, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, directly removed the petitioner from service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was removed from service without any preliminary inquiry, regular departmental enquiry, personal hearing, examination of witnesses or opportunity of cross-examination. The Superintendent of Police acted solely on the unverified complaint/report of the Station House Officer who himself was the complainant, without furnishing a copy of the report to the petitioner or proving the allegations in accordance with law. The disputed allegations of misconduct could not have been accepted without a proper enquiry, and therefore no punishment could have been imposed. It is further submitted that the appellate and higher authorities mechanically affirmed the order without considering the applicable Government 3 circulars, the legal infirmities in the proceedings, or the fact that the punishment of removal is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had an unblemished service record, had never been involved in any misconduct, his service was always found satisfactory and the impugned removal has caused severe hardship to him and his family. Accordingly, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was found discharging official duties in an inebriated state, which stood confirmed through medical examination. The petitioner not only misbehaved with fellow staff members but also exhibited indiscipline towards his superiors, amounting to grave misconduct incompatible with the standards expected from a member of the police force. It is submitted that a show-cause notice was duly issued and the petitioner’s explanation was considered but found unsatisfactory, whereupon the competent authority passed the order of removal strictly in accordance with Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Assistant Armed Police Force (Recruitment, Training, Remuneration and other allowances, Condition of Service, Conduct and Control) Rules, 2011 (for short Rules, 2011). The disciplinary, appellate and higher authorities applied their minds and passed the impugned orders in conformity with the statutory rules and settled principles governing disciplined forces, wherein even minor dereliction of duty is viewed seriously. It is further submitted that no allegation or material establishing mala fide exercise of power has been brought on record by the petitioner. Therefore, no illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity can be attributed to the impugned orders, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. This Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 sent for the papers of enquiry either preliminary or department conducted against the petitioner. Thus, the papers were submitted before this Court. 4 7. Record reflects that Station House Officer of Police Station, Faraspal District Dantewada (C.G.) on 03.04.2018 made a communication/report to the Superintendent of Police, District Dantewada (C.G.) (Respondent No.4) leveling allegations that on asking the reason for resuming duty late by petitioner, he misbehaved with him, threatened, filthily abused him. He was also medically examined by a Doctor with regard to his consumption of alcohol. A rojnamcha sanha was also recorded. After receipt of the said communication/report, the Respondent No.4 on 02.04.2018 issued a show cause notice to petitioner. It would be pertinent to add here that the communication/report contains a date as 03.04.2018 whereas the MLC, rojnamcha Sanha and show cause notice are dated 02.04.2018. After receipt of the show cause notice, petitioner submitted his reply. It has been stated that as he reached on duty with a delay of 30 minutes after having his lunch SHO he was filthily abused by the SHO and mentally harassed him. From the record it does not appear that on receipt of the reply of the show cause notice, the respondent no.4 has conducted any enquiry with regard to test the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Neither any witnesses were examined nor any opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P/4) removed the petitioner from service. The appeal and mercy appeals were later on dismissed by the Respondent No. 2 & 3. 8. The point for determination before this Court as to the whether the petitioner can be removed from service without conducting an enquiry either preliminary of departmental simply by giving a show cause notice. 9. The contention of Shri Pali is that the impugned order of punishment was passed without following the principle of natural justice, without conducting any enquiry either preliminary or departmental hence it cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court is liable to be set aside. Whereas, the state counsel has refuted the same and submitted that show cause notice was given and after due satisfaction that the reply to it was not satisfactory, the impugned order of imposing punishment was passed following the provisions contained in Rules, 2011. 5 10. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to have a glance on the provisions contained in the Rules, 2011. 11. Rule 10 of Rules, 2011 deals with termination of service from force. Sub Rule (2) of Rules 10 provides that if a member of force does not held that qualification as prescribed in sub rule (7) of Rule 7 or is found guilty of misconduct as prescribed, the appointing authority after giving an opportunity of hearing and after recording the reasons in writing can terminate the member of force from service. Rule 18 provides for minor penalty of censure and major penalty of removal form service, which will not debar from future employment. 12. Reading of sub rule (2) of rules 10 of Rules, 2011 makes it abundantly clear that in order to remove a member of force firstly he/she has to be found guilty of misconduct as prescribed and thereafter giving an opportunity of hearing and recording the reasons in writing, the appointing authority can terminate the services from force. Perusal of impugned order (Annexure P/4) reflects that the respondent no. 4 recorded that the petitioner misbehaved with SHO when he returned late on duty. He was found to have consumed alcohal in the MLC. It has also found that petitioner reported on duty on 10.04.2018 after 8 days after he was medically examined in district Hopital, Dantewada. Thus, the petitioner has committed misconducted. It would be pertinent to add here that factum of reporting on duty after 8 days was not an allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice. Thus, he had no opportunity to explain it. This is one of the misconducted recorded in the impugned order. The impugned order (Annexure P/4) does not reflect that the respondent no. 4 before recording the finding of misconducted recorded evidence of any witness to test the veracity of the allegation against the petitioner. As noted above finding of misconduct is to be recorded first and thereafter giving an opportunity of hearing punishment can be imposed of removal from service from force. The impugned order has civil consequences. The petitioner was found guilty of misconducted ant that too without conducting any enquiry. Of course Rules, 2011 does not discloses any provision of conducting any enquiry and only provides for 6 opportunity of hearing, however it would not mean that the principle of natural justice is given a go by before imposing harsh punishment of removal from service. When the petitioner has levelled allegation against the SHO with regard to abusing him filthily and for mental harassment, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 4 to take out the truth. It appears that the petitioner was condemned by passing the principle of natural justice. 13. From the record it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2012. Before passing the impugned order he had put in about 6 years of regular service. During his service tenure he was given 3 minor penalties and 8 awards. However, in this case the principle of natural justice has been given a complete go-by. It is a settled principle of law that if any stigmatic order is passed, principle of natural justice must be adhered to. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2024 SCC Online SC 2139, held that even in case of contractual appointment, if any stigmatic order is to be passed, it may be passed only after holding proper enquiry and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. This Court in case of Nand Kumar Bhartivanshi Vs. state of Chhattisgarh order dated 06.02.2026 in WPS No. 8189 of 2025 in paragraph No. 7 held as under: “7. When the allegations is of misconduct & irregularities holding the employee liable and the employee has specifically denied all allegation mentioned in the show cause notice the minimum which is to be expected from the authority to prove the allegations levelled against them by conducting enquiry giving opportunity to defend the charges, cross-examine the witnesses and to produce evidence in his support, even in the case of a contractual employee, the employer cannot dispense with the requirement of holding a proper enquiry for the termination is based on allegation of misconduct or result in a stigmatic order. While a contractual appointment may permit termination in terms of the contract, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Termination effected without following due process of law is in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. It was for the respondent authority to follow due procedure of law before passing order of termination when 7 order passed by respondents terminating service of petitioner is not simplictor, but is punitive on allegations, not only affecting the present service on which he was posted but it is going to affect the future career prospects also." 14. Thus in light of the above discussions and case laws quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in the impugned orders. Consequently, the impugned orders (Annexure P-1, 2, 3 & 4) are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service in continuity of service. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that during this long period, the petitioner was not engaged in any gainful employment and therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass any order with regard to payment of back wages. 15. This writ petition thus allowed with observations made above. 16. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari