1 CGHC010027152019 2026:CGHC:31503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 539 of 2019 George Kerketta S/o Kamil Kerkatta Aged About 40 Years Caste Uraon, Ex- Constable No. 208, 12th Batallion Caf, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, R/o Paiku Sardih, Tehsil Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Armed Force -2, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh, Armed Force-2, Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant 12 Th Battalian Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattis- garh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 02.01.2016 (Annex- ure A/1), whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal pre- ferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.09.2014, by which the petitioner was removed from service pursuant to a departmental Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.07.23 16:56:38 +0530 2 enquiry on the allegation that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in an illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the specific contention of the petitioner that he had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing during the departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that no reason order has been passed. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the departmental enquiry was con- ducted strictly in accordance with law. The charge of contracting a sec- ond marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, in violation of Rule 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, stood proved. It is submitted that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have passed well-reasoned orders after due consid- eration of the material on record, and therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry after issuance of a charge-sheet on the alle- gation that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsis- tence of his first marriage in violation of Rule 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, the disciplinary au- thority removed him from service. The said order was subsequently af- firmed by the appellate authority. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are applica- ble. Rule 27 governs the consideration of an appeal, and Rule 27(2) prescribes the matters which the appellate authority is required to ex- amine while deciding the appeal. 7. Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 reads as under: Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.07.23 16:56:25 +0530 3 "27(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty im- posed under the said Rules, the appellate authority shall con- sider— (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 war- ranted by the evidence on record; and (c) whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe" 8. A careful perusal of the impugned appellate order reveals that the man- date of Rule 27(2) has not been complied with. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without considering whether the procedure prescribed under the Rules had been duly followed, whether the find- ings recorded by the disciplinary authority were supported by the evi- dence on record, and whether the penalty imposed was adequate, in- adequate or excessive. The impugned appellate order, therefore, can- not be sustained in law. 9. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 02.01.2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consid- eration of the petitioner's appeal strictly in accordance with Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appellate authority shall afford an opportunity of hear- ing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking or- der, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.The present writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti