1 CGHC010043302020 2026:CGHC:37951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 815 of 2020 Baijnath Bhaina, S/o. Late Saheb Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o. Khokrabhata, Behind Adarsh School Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Inspector General Of Police (Administration-1), Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jayant K.Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.08.24 17:33:22 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director General of Police, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is 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 support the impugned orders and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 3 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.” 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 4 not considered in accordance with the Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. 7. In view of the above, the order dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) is liable to be and hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority i.e. Director General of Police for hearing and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the appellate authority may take cognizance of memo dated 13.09.2019 issued by the competent authority after due approval of the Director General of Police. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the above- extent. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge