Naval Kishore Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Sunil Pillai and Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocates. For Respondents/ State : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (22nd July, 2026) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to the case and the case decided by respondent no. 3 for kind perusal.

10.2 To set aside the impugned appellate order Annexure P/8 dated 25.11.2022.

10.3 To set aside the impugned order Annexure P/4 dated

30.01.21 and undated enquiry report (Annexure P/2).

10.4 To direct respondents to pay to Petitioner all consequential benefits.

10.5 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

02. Facts, in brief, of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station – Devri, Distt. Balod, Crime No.86/2018 for offence u/s 34(2) of CG Excise Act was registered against accused Asharam Sahu and others. In their arrest memo, the petitioner did not mention about criminal antecedents of the accused persons whereas as many as 20 criminal cases were registered against accused Asharam and Dinesh Kumar, who are father and son. Further, on account of the petitioner not filing charge 3 sheet within 60 days, the accused persons were released on bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. Hence on 9.1.2020 a common departmental charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and Popendra Kurre (SI). The disciplinary authority appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer for conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report wherein he found both the charges leveled against the petitioner proved vide Annexure P/2. The petitioner was supplied the said enquiry report with covering memo dated 26.11.2020 which was replied by the petitioner on 19.12.2020 stating that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice. However, the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and passed final order dated 30.1.2021 (Annexure P/4), thereby inflicting major penalty of reduction by an amount equivalent to one annual increment in the current pay scale, with cumulative effect. It was also observed that this penalty shall have a continuing impact on his future annual increments and other service- related benefits.

03. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2021, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 6.3.2021 before respondent No.2 vide Annexure P/5. As the said appeal remained pending for about a period of six months, the petitioner sent a reminder/representation dated

22.9.2021 as also on 7.7.2022 vide Annexure P/6 & P/7. However, the appellate authority without application of mind and in a mechanical 4 manner upheld the order of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure P/8). Hence this petition.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been inflicted a major penalty of reduction by an amount equivalent to one annual increment in the current pay scale, with cumulative effect which shall have a continuing impact on his future annual increments and other service-related benefits. But as per the circular dated 10.10.2008 issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur it has been stated therein that there is no provision under Para 214 of CG Police Regulation with regard to imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. He further submitted that the provision of sub-rule (19) of Rule 14 of CG Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “CCA Rules, 1966”), has not been followed as the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer has been discussed in the Enquiry Report but the one submitted by the petitioner has not been evaluated as is evident from the Enquiry Report. Thus, non-consideration of written brief of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer clearly shows the mindset of the Enquiry Officer to the prejudice of the petitioner.

05. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that since in this case all the mandatory provisions of CCA Rules, 1966 and CG Police Regulations have been 5 duly complied with, therefore, imposition of aforesaid major penalty is just and proper. He would submit that it is well settled that scope of interference in departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings is limited to the extent of finding being erroneous or manifestly arbitrary or the finding is such which is not based on facts and materials produced before the enquiry officer. However, in this case, no such finding is there which requires interference by this Court. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry. A bare perusal of the enquiry report would reflect that the Enquiry Officer has duly considered the contentions put forth by the petitioner and based on the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that charges made against the petitioner stand proved. He would further submit that the disciplinary authority has also given opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and after considering the reply of the petitioner with respect to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in detail, appreciated the contention and submission of the petitioner and thus, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly imposed penalty of withholding one increment in the present pay scale with cumulative effect. The appellate authority has considered all the aspects of the matter and by a well reasoned order dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, the instant petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6

07. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reduction by an amount equivalent to one annual increment in the current pay scale, with cumulative effect, which shall have a continuing impact on future annual increments and other service-related benefits. The record shows that the petitioner is a member of the police force and the disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations read with the CCA Rules, 1966. The circular dated

10.10.2008 issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur reads as under: पु(cid:2)लि(cid:4)स मु(cid:2)ख्या(cid:9)(cid:4)या, छत्ती(cid:12)सगढ़ " लिसवि(cid:16)(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:9)ईन्स, रा(cid:9)यापु(cid:2)रा 492001 पु(cid:2)लि(cid:4)स वि(cid:20)र्दे(cid:22)श क्र० -04 क्रमां(cid:3)(cid:4)क-पु(cid:7)मां(cid:7)/प्रशा(cid:3)/वि(cid:11)जां(cid:3)(cid:4)च/1273/08 रा(cid:3)यपु(cid:7)रा, दि(cid:17)नां(cid:3)(cid:4)क 10/10/2008 प्रवि(cid:19), समुस्त पु(cid:2)लि(cid:4)स इका(cid:9)ईया(cid:30) छत्ती(cid:12)सगढ़ वि(cid:11)षय :- (cid:16)(cid:31)त(cid:20)(cid:16) द्धि" स#चया(cid:12) रूपु स(cid:31) रा&का(cid:20)(cid:31) का(cid:9) वि(cid:20)यामु वि(cid:16)रु" आर्दे(cid:31)श जा(cid:9)रा(cid:12) (cid:20) कारा(cid:20)(cid:31) बा(cid:9)बात+। य(cid:3) " एक (cid:11)'(cid:19)नां(cid:11),द्धिद्ध एक (cid:11)ष0 क' कई प्रकराणों(cid:24) मां(cid:25) अनां(cid:7)शा(cid:3)सविनांक अधि(cid:29)क(cid:3)रिराय(cid:24) द्वा(cid:3)रा(cid:3) वि(cid:11)भा(cid:3)गी"य जां(cid:3)(cid:4)च मां(cid:25) आरा$पु प्रमां(cid:3)णिणों(cid:19) पु(cid:3)ए एक (cid:11)'(cid:19)नां(cid:11),द्धिद्ध स(cid:4)चय" रूपु स' रा$कनां' क(cid:3) वि(cid:11)रुद्ध " लि)ए रा$क' जां(cid:3)नां' क(cid:3) (cid:17)(cid:4)ड द्धिजांसक(cid:3) प्रभा(cid:3)(cid:11) स(cid:4)चय" हो$गी(cid:3)" जां$ विनांयमां(cid:3)नां(cid:7)क3 ) नांहो4 हो5। क, प्य(cid:3) इस स(cid:4)बं(cid:4)(cid:29) मां(cid:25) छत्ती"सगीढ़ पु(cid:7)लि)स (cid:4)विक क' अ(cid:4)(cid:19)गी0(cid:19) पु(cid:7)लि)स अ(cid:29)"क्षक क$ इस प्रक(cid:3)रा क(cid:3) (cid:17)(cid:4)ड अधि(cid:29)रा$विपु(cid:19) इस क(cid:3)राणों मां(cid:3)नांनां"य छत्ती"सगीढ़ उच्च न्य(cid:3)य(cid:3))य द्वा(cid:3)रा(cid:3) कई बं(cid:3)रा इस इस स(cid:4)बं(cid:4)(cid:29) मां(cid:25) मां(cid:3)नांनां"य उच्च(cid:19)मां न्य(cid:3)य(cid:3))य द्वा(cid:3)रा(cid:3) भा" अप्र5) 1994) मां(cid:25) दि(cid:17)नां(cid:3)(cid:4)क 25 जां(cid:3)नां' पुरा अपुच(cid:3)रा" पु(cid:7)लि)स अधि(cid:29)क(cid:3)रिराय(cid:24) क' (cid:17)(cid:4)ड" अधि(cid:29)रा$विपु(cid:19) विकए गीय' हो2, रा'ग्य3० क' पु5रा(cid:3) 214 पु(cid:7)लि)स रा'ग्य3० क' पु5रा(cid:3) 221 करानां' क(cid:3) अधि(cid:29)क(cid:3)रा नांहो4 हो5, प्रक(cid:3)रा क' (cid:17)(cid:4)ड(cid:3)(cid:17)'शा ' अपु(cid:3)स्(cid:19) विकए गीए हो2. मां०प्र० शा(cid:3)सनां ए(cid:11)(cid:4) अन्य वि(cid:11)रुद्ध रा(cid:3)धि(cid:29)क(cid:3) प्रस(cid:3)(cid:17) दुबं' ( क(cid:3) अ(cid:11))(cid:3)कनां हो$ द्धिजांसमां(cid:25) इस प्रक(cid:3)रा क' (cid:17)(cid:4)ड क(cid:3) प्र(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:29)(cid:3)नां नांहो4 हो5। च3 उपुरा$क्(cid:19)(cid:3)नां(cid:7)स(cid:3)रा (cid:17)ण्ड(cid:3)(cid:17)'शा अपु(cid:3)स्(cid:19) विकय(cid:3) गीय(cid:3) हो5। 7 अ(cid:19)F भावि(cid:11)ष्य मां(cid:25) अनां(cid:7)शा(cid:3)लिसक अधि(cid:29)क(cid:3)रा" उपुरा$क्(cid:19) विनांयमां(cid:24) क' अनां(cid:7)रूपु क(cid:3)य0(cid:11)(cid:3)हो" करानां(cid:3) स(cid:7)विनांणिH(cid:19) करा'। सहो"/-(वि(cid:11)श्वरा(cid:4)जांनां) पु(cid:7)लि)स मांहो(cid:3)विनां(cid:17)'शाक दि(cid:17)नां(cid:3)(cid:4)क 10/10/2008” रा(cid:3)यपु(cid:7)रा, The aforesaid circular specifically clarifies that punishment of "one increment withheld with cumulative effect" or "one increment stopped for one year with cumulative effect" is not a punishment contemplated under Para 214 of the Police Regulations. The circular further records that the Superintendent of Police has no authority under Para 221 of the Police Regulations to impose such punishment and notices that identical punishments have repeatedly been set aside by the High Court and also by the Supreme Court. The respondents have not pointed out any provision either under Para 214 of the Police Regulations or under any statutory rule authorizing imposition of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect upon a police officer.

08. Most importantly, the petitioner contends that there is violation of the provision of sub-rule (19) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966. Rule 14(19) reads as under: “Rule 14 (19)- Submission of briefs (19) The inquiring authority may, after completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed and the Government servant, or permit them to file 8 written briefs of their respective case, if they so desire.” The enquiry report itself demonstrates that the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer has been noticed and discussed. However, there is no discussion whatsoever regarding the written brief of the petitioner although the petitioner specifically pleaded that his written brief had been filed. The enquiry report neither records the petitioner's submissions nor assigns any reason for rejecting them. The purpose of Rule 14(19) is to enable both sides to summarize the evidence and point out the legal and factual issues before findings are recorded. Once written briefs are invited or accepted from both sides, fairness demands that both receive equal consideration. Selective consideration of only the Presenting Officer's written brief while completely ignoring the delinquent employee's written brief amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and violates the principles of natural justice. Such procedural unfairness has caused prejudice because the findings were recorded without considering the petitioner's final defence. Thus, on the ground of violation of provision of sub-rule (19) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966, the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated. Consequently, the impugned punishment order as well as the appellate order are liable to be set aside.

09. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the enquiry report (Annexure P/2), punishment order dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure P/4) and appellate order dated 9

25.11.2022 (Annexure P/8) in relation to the petitioner, are quashed. The respondents are directed to restore all consequential service benefits flowing from setting aside of the punishment, including restoration of increment(s), refixation of pay and all consequential monetary and pensionary benefits, if any. However, it shall be open to the disciplinary authority, if so advised, to proceed afresh against the petitioner from the stage where the procedural illegality occurred, strictly in accordance with the CCA Rules, 1966 and the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. Accordingly, the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan