1 CGHC010394672018 2026:CGHC:37029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8336 of 2018  Shyam Sunder Tandon S/o Late Hira Lal Tandon Aged About 60 Years Working As- Head Constable, At- Police Station, Pallari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur 2. The Director General Of Police, State Of Chhattisgarh, P.H.Q. Atal Nagar, Raipur 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.08 .2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 23.10.2018 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, whereby the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar-Bhatapara has been directed to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner and other delinquent employees. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.20 16:34:10 +0530 2 2. Mr. Kesharwani would submit that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, who was Head Constable at Police Station Pallari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara and Baldev Singh Thakur (Inspector), P.S. Netam (Inspector), Lachchhan Ram Giri (ASI), Head Constable Balram Patel. He would submit that the disciplinary authority vide order dated 13.07.2011 inflicted penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner, whereas, penalty of reversion etc. were imposed against other delinquent employees. 3. Mr. Kesharwani would contend that an appeal was preferred before the Director General of Police, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2012. He would submit that no presenting officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority, therefore, in WPS No. 4539 of 2012, the order passed by disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority were quashed. He would contend that in said writ petition no liberty was reserved with the department to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry. It is argued by Mr. Kesharwani that the petitioner herein approached the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range along with order passed in WPS No. 4539 of 2012, and in turn, the said authority quashed the earlier orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and directed the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar-Bhatapara to initiate a fresh inquiry against the petitioner. He would submit that as the departmental enquiry was held vitiated as no presenting officer was appointed and further no liberty was granted to the department to initiate a fresh inquiry in WPS No. 4539 of 2012, the order passed by Inspector General of Police, Raipur range dated 23.10.2018 is bad in law. He would contend that on same set of allegations fresh inquiry cannot be initiated against the petitioner. It is also argued by 3 Mr. Kesharwani that the petitioner has already got retired from services on account of superannuation in the year 2020. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner never challenged the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 13.09.2012 passed by the appellate authority by filing writ petition before the High Court. He would contend that one Lachchhan Ram Giri had challenged those orders by filing WPS No. 4539 of 2012 and his petition was allowed. He would contend that the order was not in rem, therefore, petitioner would not get any benefit from said order. It is also argued that the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range quashed the previous orders and directed the disciplinary authority to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner. He would contend that the order dated 23.10.2018 has been passed within the four corners of service jurisprudence, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and four other delinquent employees. The disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner vide order dated 13.07.2011. In the said order, different penalties were inflicted with other delinquent employees. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 13.09.2012. One of the delinquent employees challenged the order of 4 penalty by filing WPS No. 4539 of 2012, said writ petition was allowed and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority were quashed. 7. It is not in dispute that common departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and other employees and procedure followed in departmental enquiry was found illegal and contrary to the procedure prescribed in Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and therefore, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority were quashed, and subsequently, the departmental enquiry itself was held vitiated. 8. Perusal of order passed in WPS No. 4539 of 2012 would make it clear that no liberty was reserved with the department to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner or any other delinquent employees. 9. The Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range though set-aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority against the petitioner, but at the same time, directed the disciplinary authority to initiate a fresh inquiry. Once the petitioner was enquired by the department in the full-fledged departmental enquiry, and there were flaws in the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer & disciplinary authority and the orders were quashed, in my opinion the liberty as granted by the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range appears to be arbitrary and contrary to the well settled principle of law. 10. Further, no liberty was granted in WPS No. 4539 of 2012 and the petitioner has already got retired from services on account of superannuation, in opinion of this Court the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, 5 Raipur Range dated 23.10.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly, quashed. 11. In result, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant