1 CGHC010309572019 2026:CGHC:32564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7981 of 2019 Ajay Kumar Tirkey, S/o. Late Zakareys Tirkey, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Semarapal, Post Tapakara, Tahsil Kunkuri, Police Station Kunkuri, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Inspector Director General Of Police, Durg Rang, 32 Bunglow, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, Kabirdham. District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.29 17:02:59 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Inspector General of Police, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, whereby the petitioner has been removed from his service. The petitioner further challenged the order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Director General of Police in the mercy petition. 2. Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, as the Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity “the Rules of 1966”) has not been complied with. 3. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned orders and submit that the Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 5. The manner to consider the appeal has been mentioned in Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966, therefore, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966, which states as under:- “27(2). In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 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; and pass orders - (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty, or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances or the case.” 4 6. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Appellate Authority has not considered the procedure laid down in the Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966 in its letter and spirit and only the procedural part has been dealt with and even no effective opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. As such, the appeal of the petitioner herein was not considered in accordance with the Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure P-3) as well as order dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-6) are liable to be and hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority / Respondent No.3 herein for hearing and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge