Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4434 of 2015 Rameshwar Sathe S/o Udaji Sathe, aged About 36 years, occupation - Service, R/o Anand Grih Nirman Samiti, Near Gokul Nagar, Mathpurena, Kathadi Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. 4. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh Superintendent Of Police, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 4438 of 2015 Tarun Kumar Netam S/o Late Sadhuram Netam, Aged About 24 Years Occupation Service, R/o Chhattisgarh Nagar, Quarter No. 39/382, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. 4. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh Superintendent Of Police, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 2 WPS No. 4437 of 2015 Bhagwat Kumar Sahu S/o Late Narendra Kumar Sahu, aged about 34 Years Occupation - Service, R/o Village Tila, Post Semra, Tahsil Abhanpur, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. 4. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh Superintendent Of Police, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 4445 of 2015 Satish Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ganesh Ram Chandrakar, aged about 34 years Occupation - Service, R/o Telibandha, Moulipara, Behind Rajdhani Auto Care, Post Ravigram Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. 4. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur Chhattisgarh Superintendent Of Police, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Dr. N.K. Shukla learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Priya Mishra, Shri Dinesh Bole, Shri Varun Vats Sharma and Shri Nitihesh Gupta Gupta, advocates For Respondents : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, GA (Hon’ble Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 20.08.2025 Since the issue involved in the aforesaid Writ Petitions is one and the same,
Decision
they are being disposed of by this common order:- 3 2. What is under challenge in these petitions is the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur by which reinstatement of the petitioners to the post of Nav Arakshak dated 31.01.2014 has been cancelled on the ground that according to the communication dated 21.05.2015 received from the Police Headquarters, no such reinstatement order was ever issued. 3. For convenience, this Court refers to the facts of WP(S) No. 4438/2015 taking it as a lead case. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Nav Arakshak on 01.09.2008 and sent to training to STC, BSF, Chakur (Maharashtra) for a period nine months. The petitioner then remained absent unauthorizedly from duty therefore, departmental enquiry was conducted and vide order dated 05.12.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by Superintendent of Police he was dismissed from service. This order was subjected to statutory appeal before the Inspector General of Police (Respondent No.3) which also came to be dismissed on 17.03.2010 (Annexure P-5). It appears that challenging the order dated 17.03.2010 the petitioner preferred WPS No. 6071/2010 and this Court vide order dated 23.04.2013 set aside set aside the same remanding the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in the order dated 05.02.2010 passed in WPS No. 1367/2005 (Soniram Dhruv v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. 5. Record reflects that simultaneously the petitioner preferred Mercy Appeal before Director General of Police (Respondent No.2) which was dismissed vide order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). After the order passed by this Court it appears that instead of availing the remedy before the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police (respondent No.3) the petitioner chose to file another mercy appeal before the Director General of Police (respondent No.2), which according tot he petitioner, was allowed and he was reinstated in service vide order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P-6). It appears that in compliance of the order 4 passed in mercy appeal, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Later on, Superintendent of Police vide order dated 02.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) observed that the order in mercy appeal was not passed by the Police Headquarters and therefore it was held to be void resulting in dismissal of the petitioner from service. It is this order which is under challenge in these petitions. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was reinstated in service by the order of Director General of Police passed in mercy appeal, and further that as the order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing, it is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reinstatement of the petitioner in service by virtue of the order passed by the Director General of Police is void ab initio. He submits that no such reinstatement proceedings were drawn by the Police Headquarters and it is the Director General of Police who had passed the said order. He submits that once the earlier mercy appeal was dismissed and that as the direction of this Court was to the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner, the said order of reinstatement could not have been passed by the Director General of Police. 8. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. Admittedly, the petitioner has suffered an order of dismissal from service against which he filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police which was dismissed summarily without giving any reasons. It is also not in dispute that against that order a writ petition was filed and this Court directed the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal in the light of order passed by this Court in the matter of Soniram Dhruv (supra). It is reflected from the record that simultaneously the petitioner approached the Director General of Police by way of mercy appeal which also stood dismissed. Surprisingly, instead of prosecuting the appeal before the Inspector General of Police, the petitioner preferred another mercy appeal which was allowed by the Director General of Police vide Annexure 5 P-6. That order itself cannot be passed by the Director General of Police in the teeth of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6071/2010 already referred to above. It is reiterated by the counsel for the respondents that no such order was passed by the Police Headquarters and it was passed only by the Director General of Police. 10. Be that as it may, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Inspector General of Police (Respondent No.3) to decide the appeal of the petitioner by a reasoned order if it is not already decided. The petitioner shall appear before the Inspector General of Police, Raipur on 10.09.2025 who in turn shall decide the appeal in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. As already said, this order would govern the petitioners in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions in letter and spirit. 12. Petitions thus stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.08.23 10:42:03 +0530