Balod, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.08 17:17:05 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:39636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3233 of 2021 Chaitram Baghel S/o Late Prahlad Baghel Aged About 55 Years Platoon Commander 21st Battalion (B/r), Caf Karkabhat, Camp Dhanora, District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Armed Force Through Special Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force - Central Range Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Commandant 21st Battalion (I/r), C.G. Armed Forces, Karkabhat, District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5. Company Commander Mukhya Samway, 14th Battalion,c.G. Armed Forces, Dhanora, District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 07-08-2025 2 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 10.1 To quash the Order dated 21/08/2019 passed by the respondent Commandant 21st Battalion(I/R), CG. Armed Forces, Karkabhat, District Balod by which the respondent has directed for treating the period from 24/10/2018 to 31/12/2018 (67 days) as Earned Leave. (ANNEXURE P/1) 10.2 To quash the First Appellate Order dated 22/05/2020 (ANNEXURE P/2) by which the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner without considering the appeal memo and the grounds raised by the petitioner. 10.3 To quash the second appellate order dated 15/03/2021 (ANNEXURE P/3) passed by the Special Director General of Police (CG Armed Forces) rejecting the second appeal of the petitioner. 10.4 To direct the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of October, 2018 to December 2018. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who is holding the post of Platoon Commander, 21st Battalion, CAF – Karkabhat, District – Balod (C.G.), remained absent from 24.10.2018 to 21.12.2018 (67 days). The Commandant, 21st Battalion vide order dated 21.08.2019 declared the said period as Earned Leave. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force and vide order dated 22.05.2020, it was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Special Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2021, but the period of absence from 24.10.2018 to 21.12.2018 was declared as “No Work No Pay”. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second appellate authority, i.e. the Special Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh 3 Armed Force, vide order dated 15.03.2021, has inflicted a harsh punishment declaring the said period as “No Work No Pay” without the issuance of a notice and without affording the opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the order dated 15.03.2021 is in contravention of Regulation 270 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. He prays that the order dated 15.03.2021 may be quashed. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and the appellate authority has the power to alter or modify the order of punishment. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Regulation 270 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations provides as under:- "270. (1) Every order of punishment exoneration, whether original or appellate shall be liable to revision suo-motu by any authority superior to the authority making the order. (2) Every appellate order by a final appellate authority shall be liable to revision by such final appellate authority on application made in that behalf by the person against whom the order has been passed. Explanation:-For the purpose of this clause the expression "final appellate authority" means the final authority empower to hear an appeal under Police Regulation 262. (3) The provisions of Regulation 266, 267, 268 and 271 shall be as nearly as may be apply to an application for revision. (4) The revising authority may for reason to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit vary of enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry of the taking of further evidence in the case: 4 Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard." 7) The appellate authority was firstly required to consider the appeal of the appellant/petitioner herein in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and the appellate authority was required to consider, whether the procedure laid down in the 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; and secondly, whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and if findings are recorded in negative, then the question as to whether the penalty imposed i.e. reversion on the proven misconduct is unjust and unreasonable warranting invoking of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 270(1) of the Police Regulations and thereafter, could have proceeded to issue a notice under Regulation 270(4) of the Police Regulations for enhancing the punishment and after hearing the petitioner, could have passed the order enhancing the punishment, but this procedure has not been followed at all. 8) Taking into consideration the facts of present case, particularly the second appellate authority inflicted a harsh punishment without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is contrary to Regulation 270 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the order passed by Special Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, dated 15.03.2021 is not sustainable in the 5 eyes of the law and is hereby quashed. 9) The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to decide the second appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with Regulation 270 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
Decision
10) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya