1 2026:CGHC:23781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1568 of 2024 Smt. Indrani Srivas W/o Shri Y. R. Srivas Aged About 53 Years R/o Qr. No. 20/34, 7th Battalion C.G. Shashatra Police, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police (I G) C.G. Sashatra Police Headquarter Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commandant 7th Battalion, C.G. Sashatra Police Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Additional Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shahil Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.06.15 17:17:57 +0530 2 i. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ to set aside the Order dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure P/1); ii. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ to set aside the Order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P/2); iii. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authority to give all service period and retrial benefit to the petitioner from dated of compulsory retirement. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner (henceforth the ‘Employee’) was working as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and posted at 7th Battalion C.G. Armed Force Bhilai. Subsequently, a Departmental enqniry was instituted against him by issuing a charge-sheet on 4.1.2001 for two charges. First charge was that he has not produced the correct record before the audit party and second charge was that he has withdrawn some amount and has not made payment to the concerned employee. After conclusion of departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted enquiry report and on the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 24.11.2001 (Annexure P/6) imposed punishment of reduction of withholding of one increment for one year. In exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 270 (4) of the CGPR, respondent No.2 took cognizance of the matter suo moto and issued show-cause notice to the petitioner on 2.2.2002, in which the petitioner filed his reply and by order dated 15.3.2002 the revisional 3 authority i.e. Inspector General of Police enhanced the penalty to the extent of compulsory retirement holding that charges found proved are extremely serious in nature. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.4/Director General of Police, which was also dismissed by respondent No.4 by order dated 16.10.2002. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by respondent No.2/Inspector General of Police and respondent No.4/Director General of Police, the employee preferred WP No. 2894/2005 before this Court and during pendency of the said writ petition, he died on 28/12/2013 and the petitioner who is the wife of the employee has contested the writ petition. 3. After hearing the parties and examining the material placed before the Court as also the regulations 225, 226 & 270(4) of CGPR and also placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SCC 496, this Court allowed the said writ petition to the following extent:- “In the light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgment, I hold that the revisional authority is absolutely unjustified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority as no valid reasons have been recorded while interfering with the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to consider afresh as to whether punishment of reduction of pay by withholding one increment by the disciplinary authority is justified 4 or not in the light of Regulations 225, 226 and 270(4) of the CGPR and take a fresh decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order” 4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities with the representation, however, the concerned authorities after examining the aspect of the matter reiterated its earlier order upholding the compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner. Thus, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an earlier writ petition bearing WP No. 2894/2005 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2017, whereby the revisional authority was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and examine whether the punishment imposed upon the husband of the petitioner was commensurate with the misconduct alleged. This Court further directed the revisional authority to consider whether the punishment of reduction in pay by withholding one increment, as imposed by the disciplinary authority, was justified in the light of Regulations 225, 226 and 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, and thereafter pass a fresh reasoned order within a period of two months. It is submitted that despite the specific directions issued by this Court, the revisional authority failed to undertake the exercise as mandated and, instead, once again imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement without assigning any cogent or valid reasons. Learned counsel contends that while reconsidering the matter, the revisional authority neither examined the gravity of the charges nor considered the proportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis the misconduct alleged and merely reiterated its 5 earlier decision by maintaining the order of compulsory retirement. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court and in contravention of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Regulations, rendering the same unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commandant of the Battalion, vide communication dated 31/05/2002 (Annexure P/9) addressed to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, had specifically made recommendations regarding the conduct, service record and work performance of the husband of the petitioner and had also explained the circumstances under which the alleged charges came to be levelled against him. However, despite the said communication forming part of the record, the revisional authority failed to take the same into consideration while passing the impugned order. It is contended that even though this Court had directed a fresh consideration of the matter, the relevant material and recommendations contained in Annexure P/9 were completely ignored, thereby vitiating the decision- making process and rendering the impugned order arbitrary and legally untenable. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in WP No. 2894/2005, the Revisional Authority reconsidered the case of the petitioner afresh and, upon such reconsideration, found no ground to interfere with its earlier decision. Consequently, the Revisional Authority maintained the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by it. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings 6 available on record. 8. Regulation 225, 226 and 270 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations reads as under:- "225. The object to be aimed at in adjudicating punishment is that while the punishment shall be adequate to the offence, it shall also be appropriate to the circumstances of the offender. What is a light punishment to one man may be most severe on another and in careful awarding punishment therefore, consideration must be given to the character. antecedents and length of service of the offender. Frank confession of a fault should always be taken into account in mitigation of punishment, while lying and false defences should be considered as a grave aggravation of an offence. 226. Punishments Offences for which given -The following rules should be observed in determining what penalty should be awarded for any particular offence:- (i) (a) dismissal is the last resource and should, ordinarily, not be inflicted until all other means of corrections have failed. (b) If dismissal is considered too severe a punishment for a Sub-Inspector he should be removed from the service (this does not amount to dismissal) (ii) Reduction in rank is suitable punishment for incompetence, or cases of serious dereliction of duty in which dismissal or removal is considered to be too severe a punishment. As a general rule, Sub-Inspectors who are directly recruited should not be punished by reduction to Assistant Sub-Inspector. The reduction to Assistant Sub- Inspector or Sub-Inspectors who were appointed by promotion from the rank of Head Constables or Assistant Sub-Inspector is permitted. 7 (iii) Withholding of increment either temporary or permanent (or grade reduction in the case of head constable) is a suitable punishment fall all cases of serious dereliction of duty. It may also be inflicted for culpable ignorance of police procedure, laziness or apathy in conducting the work of the police station, and the like. Fair warning should be given in every opportunity for amendment instance and afforded before the punishment is awarded. In the case of a constable, the period of deprivation shall not exceed a year, nor is it advisable that a constable should be deprived of more than one increment at a time. If after a departmental enquiry for a subsequent offence. It is found advisable to inflict this punishment on a constable already under reduction, the proper order to pass is one extending the reduction by a period not exceeding one year. (iv) An increment which has fallen due may be withheld for a definite period for inefficiency or unsatisfactory service. In the case of a constable it shall not be withheld for more than one year in the first instance. If a subsequent offence justifies extension of this period a departmental enquiry is necessary. (v) Fine is an appropriate punishment for repeated carelessness and disobedience of orders, unpunctuality and the like. Fines should be moderates in amount; the loss of half a month's pay is the utmost that should ever be inflicted, save exceptional circumstances. The finding of constable is prohibited. (vi) In the case of head constable and constables minor offences against discipline should be dealt with, firstly, by warning and if this proves ineffectual by the infliction of the 8 minor punishment specified in regulation 216 and 217 (b) or by detailing the offender to a course of more irksome and unpopular duties. (vii) The transfer of a police officer to an unhealthy or unpopular post as a punishment is strictly forbidden. 270(4):- The revising authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing exonerate or may or enhance the punishment remit, vary imposed or may order a fresh enquiry or the taking of further evidence in the case: Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given them for being heard. 9. Regulations 225 and 226 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations lay down the guiding principles governing the imposition of punishment upon a delinquent employee and require the disciplinary as well as revisional authorities to take into consideration the nature of the misconduct, the character, antecedents and length of service of the employee, as well as the proportionality of the punishment proposed to be imposed. Regulation 270(4) further empowers the Revisional Authority to modify, enhance, remit or vary the punishment for reasons to be recorded in writing and mandates observance of the principles of natural justice before passing any adverse order. 10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that although an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the Revisional Authority has failed to undertake the exercise directed by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2017 in its true letter and spirit. This Court had specifically directed the Revisional Authority to reconsider the matter afresh and 9 examine whether the punishment imposed upon the employee was commensurate with the misconduct alleged and justified in light of Regulations 225, 226 and 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. However, the impugned order does not disclose any meaningful consideration of the aforesaid aspects. Neither has the Revisional Authority examined the gravity of the misconduct vis-à-vis the punishment imposed nor has it recorded any cogent reasons justifying the punishment of compulsory retirement. 11. It is further evident from the record that the Commandant, vide communication dated 31.05.2002 (Annexure P/9), had made specific recommendations regarding the conduct, service record and work performance of the husband of the petitioner and had also explained the circumstances under which the alleged charges came to be levelled against him. The said communication constituted a relevant piece of material having a direct bearing on the question of proportionality of punishment. However, the Revisional Authority has failed to advert to or consider the same while passing the impugned order. Non-consideration of such relevant material, coupled with the absence of adequate reasons, renders the decision-making process arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P/2) has been passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and without due consideration of the requirements prescribed under Regulations 225, 226 and 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. Consequently, the said order cannot be 10 sustained and deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Inspector General of Police, CAF-1) Police Head Quarter, Raipur as also the order dated 12/09/2017 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Director General of Police (CAF) Police Head Quarter, Raipur are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration. Respondent No. 2 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the observations made hereinabove and the provisions contained in Regulations 225, 226 and 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. While doing so, the Revisional Authority shall specifically consider all relevant materials available on record, including the recommendation made by the Commandant, the petitioner's service record, the nature and gravity of the misconduct proved against him and the proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed. Thereafter, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul