Jashpur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through De
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.24 16:31:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:9011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 606 of 2018 1. Suresh Yadav S/o Shri Chand Lal Yadav, Aged About 41 Years R/o New Pension Bada, Near Mahila Politanic College, N-24, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Budhna Ram, S/o Late Shri Gale Ram Bhagat, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bahora, Tahsil Bagich, District Jashpur Nagar Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akashat Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the petitioner respectfully prays for issuance 2 of suitable writ / direction for setting aside the orders dated 16.05.2007, 23.12.2006, 08.03.2016, 11.03.2016, 21.06.2016 and 21.04.2017 and the petitioners may kindly be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 10.2 Any other relief/relief’s, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners.” 2. The facts of the present case are that at the relevant time in the year 2006, the petitioners were posted as Constables in Raipur. The petitioners were deployed to present one accused namely, Rahul @ Ashok Sinde before the Court at Rajnandgaon on 30.01.2006. The petitioners while carrying the accused, dropped him at the Power House Station without any security and he was permitted to approach one Hemu Jain to extort money. Thereafter, he was taken to Rajnandgaon Court through a hired car and he was permitted to go to the Sony Times shop. Thereafter, he was taken to the house of his relatives without handcuffs and he was permitted to escape from the judicial custody. 3. The article of charge was issued against the petitioners for the alleged misconduct on 14.03.2006. The disciplinary authority appointed the enquiry officer and presenting officer; the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report before the disciplinary authority, where the allegations were found proved. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice and afforded the proper opportunity of hearing before inflicting punishment. The petitioners filed their reply and thereafter, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of removal from services vide order dated 23.12.2006. The petitioners preferred a departmental appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2007. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 223 of IPC. The police filed the charge-sheet after completion of the 3 investigation; the petitioners moved an application under Section 258 of CrPC and the same was allowed by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class vide order dated 30.07.2015 and the petitioners were discharged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier a writ petition
Decision
bearing WPS No. 3908 of 2015 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2015, whereby, the petitioners were permitted to make a representation before the competent authority to consider it according to provisions of Regulation 241 of the C.G. Police Regulations. He would further submit that the representation was rejected. He would also submit that the review application under Regulation 270(1) of the C.G. Police Regulations was also moved and it was dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2016 in a mechanical manner. It is contended that on the same set of facts and allegations, a criminal case as well as the departmental enquiry were initiated and in the criminal case, the petitioners have been discharged therefore the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority ought to have exonerated the petitioners. It is further contended that the appellate authority has passed a non-speaking order in the appeal and failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners. It is also contended that the disciplinary authority has not followed the procedure laid down in the Rules while inflicting punishment. It is stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is shocking and disproportionate. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No. 83 of 2016 dated 04.01.2022. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari. He would submit that there were 4 serious allegations against the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners were found negligent in the discharge of their duties. They helped an accused to escape from the police custody. He would contend that the allegations in the departmental enquiry and criminal case were entirely different. It is further contended that an FIR was registered against the petitioners for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 223 of the IPC, whereas, there were three allegations in the article of charge against the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners were afforded the sufficient opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry. It is further argued that the appellate authority has affirmed the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is stated that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. In the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra), the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 & 498A of the IPC. The order of removal from services was passed on account of the registration of an FIR whereas he was acquitted honourably by the criminal Court. The sole foundation of his removal from services was his arrest in connection with offence punishable under Sections 306 & 498 A of the IPC; therefore, it was held that the provisions of Regulation 241 would apply in toto and the petitioner was found entitled to reinstatement. 8. In the present case, the petitioners who were posted as Constables in Raipur were deployed to take an accused from Raipur to Rajnandgaon Court on 30.01.2006. The petitioners took him to Power House Station from where he went to Jawahar Market and extorted money from the shop of one Hemu Jain. Thereafter, he was brought to Rajnandgaon Court in a 5 private taxi and he again visited one Sony Times shop. The accused was permitted to visit his relatives from where he fled away. 9. An FIR was registered against the petitioners for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 223 of the IPC. Section 223 of IPC provides punishment for escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by the public servant. 10. From a perusal of the article of charge issued by the disciplinary authority and the allegations made in FIR, it is apparent that the allegations are entirely different. 11. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class after going through the charge- sheet and allegations, discharged the petitioners. In the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority appointed the enquiry officer and presenting officer, and the article of charge was issued to the petitioners, who filed their reply. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the allegations leveled against the petitioners. The petitioners were afforded the proper opportunity and there are no averments in the writ petition that the petitioners were not offered the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses or documents were not supplied and thus, the principle of natural justice was duly followed. The petitioners have not placed any document to demonstrate that any application was moved before the enquiry officer to cross-examine any particular witness or to examine any witness in defence. 12. In the matter of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 38, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of disciplinary inquiry, the Court is to examine and determine - (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules and natural justice are complied with; and (iii) 6 whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and the authority has the power and jurisdiction to reach findings of fact or conclusions. It is also held that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings; the only requirement of law is that the allegations against the delinquent must be established by such evidence. It is also observed that while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court should not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity. Paras- 26, 27, 28 and 29 are reproduced herein below:- “26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusions. 27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not 28. applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry 7 proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 13. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted by the competent authority and after completion of the enquiry; a report was placed before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after going through the findings recorded by the enquiry officer inflicted the penalty of removal from services. 14. The petitioners preferred an appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 16.05.2007. Though the petitioners preferred a mercy appeal, but it appears that the same has not been decided. In the present petition, the petitioners have not sought any direction to the authority concerned to decide the mercy appeal. 15. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant