1 2026:CGHC:6350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4379 of 2019 Surendra Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o. Late Shri Babulal Nirmalkar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Qtr. No. 527, Sector 4, Balconagar, Police Station Balco, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Headquarters, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.02.04 17:09:05 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition questioning the order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) by which the mercy petition of the petitioner was dismissed finding no merit, affirming the order passed in appeal dated 01.10.2018 and also affirming the order of removal of service dated 30.05.2018. 2. Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was holding the post of Constable and his appeal has been dismissed in one line order without complying the Rule 27(2) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rules of 1996). Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the appellate authority for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously. 3 5. Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1996 provided as under : “27. Consideration of appeal : - xxx….xxx….xxx…… (2). In the case of an appeal 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 order - (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 of the case: 6. A careful perusal of the Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1996 would show that the appellate authority, while hearing the appeal, is required to consider 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; whether the findings of the disciplinary 4 authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe. 7. None of these rules have been followed and the appeal has been dismissed straightaway finding no merit in one line order. Therefore, the order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) are liable to be and hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the Rules of 1996. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the appellate authority shall decide the case of the petitioner, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge