1 CGHC010138652020 2026:CGHC:32834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2509 of 2020 1 - Chandrakant Dhruw S/o Gyaneshwar Dhruw Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Pashchim Bajrang Chowk, Khursenga, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (Home) Police Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Superintendent Of Police Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anunay Kumar Shrivastava on behalf of Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocates For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 09/07/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority / Respondent No.2 herein, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 29/10/2018 (Annexure P/5) passed by Respondent No.3 as well as order dated 16/04/2018 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 4 herein dismissing the services of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are liable to be dismissed as 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. 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 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. Admittedly, petitioner was dismissed from service on account of misconduct against which he had preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and thereafter, petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before the respondent No. 2, but that was also dismissed by respondent No. 2. 6. 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 4 (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.” 7. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Appellate Authority has not considered the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with or not; whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and dismissed the appeal. As such, the appeal of the petitioner herein was not considered in accordance with the Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. 8. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 09/07/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.2, 29/10/2018 (Annexure P/5) passed by Respondent No.3 and 16/04/2018 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 4 are liable to be and are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 herein for hearing and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunities to the parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet