Afr High Court
Case Details
1 WPS No. 1186 of 2016 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.04.13 12:30:32 +0530 2025:CGHC:15872 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1186 of 2016 Shankar Lal Dhurve S/o Shri Raghbar Ram Dhurve, aged about 38 years, Caste Gond, R/o. village Achholi, Police Station, Post and Tahsil – Dongargarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director General of Police, Department of Home, Police Head Quarter – Raipur, Districtc – Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. Superintendent of Police, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6. Anil Agrawal, Sub Inspector (Police) (The Then Station House Officer, Police Station – Aundhi, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No.1-5 :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer 2 WPS No. 1186 of 2016 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01.04.2025 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 27.02.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby the mercy petition of the petitioner has been dismissed while affirming judgment dated 02.11.2015 (Annexure P/2) passed by the appellate authority, by which the order passed by the disciplinary authority/respondent No.4 dated 23.06.2007 (Annexure P/4) terminating the petitioner from his service as he was found to be absent on 25.02.2007 and also on the same day he was found to be in drunken state and misbehaved with officers, has been affirmed. Factual matrix of the case:- 2. The present petitioner, while working on the post of Police Constable, was served with charge-sheet dated 18.04.2007 for unauthorised absence on 25.02.2007 as well as for his misbehaviour with the officers and coming to the police station in drunken condition. 3 WPS No. 1186 of 2016 3. Against the said act of the present petitioner, the enquiry was conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Ambagarh Chowki/respondent No.4 herein, who submitted his report on 03.06.2007, in which the act of the appellant was found violative of Rules 3(1)(2), 23(क), (ख), (ग), and 3(1)(3) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and Regulation 64(4)(11) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. The said inquiry report was also served to the petitioner on 04.06.2007. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.06.2007 passed by Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon/respondent No.4 herein, the petitioner was terminated from his services, against which he preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police/respondent No.3 herein which also stood dismissed on 02.11.2015. Against the judgment passed by respondent No.3 herein, he preferred mercy petition, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.02.2016. Assailing the impugned order (Annexure P/1) this petition has been filed. Submission of the parties:- 4. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that for unauthorised absence only 4 WPS No. 1186 of 2016 for one day, major punishment could not have been inflicted. He would also submit that it is the case of the State that the petitioner came to the police station in drunken condition on 25.02.2007, however, neither medical test nor blood test was conducted by the respondent authorities to find out whether the petitioner was in the state of intoxication or not on that day, as such, the said finding of the respondent is totally perverse finding and therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed and relief as prayed for be granted by reinstating the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits. To buttress his submission, he relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 and Munna Lal Vs. Union of India and Others. 2 . 5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the State, would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and in departmental inquiry, misconduct has also been found proved by the disciplinary authority on the part of the petitioner, as such, the order impugned is well- 1 2