1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2077 of 2023 1 - Jitendra Yadav S/o Badriprasad Yadav Aged About 33 Years Posted As Constable (Driver)- 1054, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The S.D.O.P. Kusmi District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, whereby the “Mercy Petition” filed by the petitioner was rejected and the order passed in the departmental enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, District Balrampur–Ramanujganj dated 08.06.2020 was affirmed, as also the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, dated 01.09.2020. The petitioner is challenging all the aforesaid orders dated 14.11.2022, 01.09.2020, and 08.06.2020, by which the respondent authorities imposed punishment upon the petitioner by deducting an amount equivalent to one salary increment from his pay. The petitioner is further challenging the departmental enquiry as well as the findings/observations recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which were not properly considered by the competent authorities and are illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law. Hence, the present petition. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner demand. 3 b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ commanding the respondent authorities to start the family pension of the petitioner in accordance with law. c. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P- 1) issued by the respondent authority. d. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Constable (Driver) No.1054 posted at Police Station Samaripath, District Balrampur– Ramanujganj (C.G.), who has been rendering his services sincerely and diligently. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge-sheet alleging misconduct of abusing Assistant Constable No.05 Dashrath Yadav, assaulting him, and pushing his wife, alleged to be in violation of Clauses (4) and (11) of Para 64 of the Police Regulations. The Enquiry Officer, without properly appreciating the facts, evidence, and defence of the petitioner, erroneously held the charges to be proved. Against the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 03.06.2020; however, the Superintendent of Police, District Balrampur–Ramanujganj, without considering the representation and material on record, passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2020 imposing the punishment of deduction of an amount equivalent to one salary increment. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before 4 the Inspector General of Police was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2020, and the Mercy Petition filed before the Director General of Police was also rejected vide order dated 14.11.2022, thereby affirming the earlier orders. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 08.06.2020, 01.09.2020, and 14.11.2022, as well as the illegal and arbitrary departmental enquiry and findings recorded therein, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theimpugned punishment is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Regulation 226(4 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, which prohibits deprivation of salary beyond one year and also does not permit reduction of increment more than once. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities failed to properly consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses examined during the departmental enquiry, who clearly stated that Assistant Constable Dashrath Yadav himself initiated the quarrel and abused the petitioner, and that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. The punishment of deduction of an amount equivalent to one salary increment amounts to a major punishment having serious civil consequences, adversely affecting the entire service career of the petitioner. It is also submitted that this being the first alleged misconduct against the petitioner, and in view of the State Government letter dated 12.06.2008 providing that in cases relating to employees 5 belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, minor lapses in a first case should ordinarily be dealt with by way of warning unless strong reasons exist, the petitioner was entitled to leniency, which was completely ignored by the respondent authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned punishment has been imposed strictly in accordance with law and after following due procedure prescribed under the relevant service regulations. It is contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, wherein adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved on the basis of evidence adduced during the enquiry. It is further submitted that the punishment awarded is proportionate to the misconduct committed and does not violate Regulation 226(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a careful perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the disciplinary authority, after conducting a duly constituted departmental enquiry in accordance with law, recorded clear and reasoned findings holding the petitioner guilty of the charges 6 levelled against him. The said findings were based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was afforded full and adequate opportunity to defend himself at every stage of the enquiry, and there is nothing on record to indicate violation of the principles of natural justice or any procedural irregularity which could vitiate the proceedings. The order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was thereafter examined by the appellate authority, which, upon independent consideration of the entire material, affirmed the findings as well as the punishment imposed. The mercy petition preferred by the petitioner was also duly considered by the competent authority, and no mitigating circumstance was found so as to warrant interference with the punishment awarded. Thus, the concurrent findings recorded by all the authorities do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or irrationality. 8. It is a settled principle of law that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to departmental enquiries is limited. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute its own opinion for that of the disciplinary authority. Interference is permissible only when the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or when the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. In the present case, none of these grounds are made out. 7 9. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive in relation to the misconduct proved against him. On the contrary, the authorities have exercised their discretion judiciously and in accordance with the applicable service regulations. No legal or factual infirmity has been pointed out by the petitioner which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 10. In view of the aforesaid, no good ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the authority deciding the mercy petition. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha