Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 6709 of 2021 1 - Kuldeep Padwar S/o Late Shri B.D. Padwar Aged About 58 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Govt. Of C.G. Police Head Quarter Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police Dindori, District- Dindori, Madhya Pradesh., District : Dindori, Madhya Pradesh 6 - Police Station Karanjiya, Through The Station House Officer, District- Dindori, Madhya Pradesh, District : Dindori *, Madhya Pradesh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Bareth, Advocate Mr. Trivenishankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey -2- Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 01.11.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1) and 13.12.2010 (ΑΝΝEXURE P/2) with all consequential benefits to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The facts of the present case are as under : (i) Initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable in the Police Department on 07.08.1983. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.06.2009. The brother of the petitioner, who was residing at Village Paresel, Police Station Karanjiya, Tehsil and District Dindouri (MP) was missing from 13.07.2009, therefore, the petitioner applied for 3 days leave, which was granted on 13.07.2009. The petitioner again applied for 15 days leave and it was granted by the superior authorities. On 05.08.2009, the petitioner applied for 30 days leave but the authority concerned granted leave of 5 days with effect from 3 10.08.2009 but the petitioner remained absent till 16.09.2009, therefore, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.9.2009. On 15.09.2009, there was riot between two groups at Karanijya and on account of police firing, four persons lost their lives. Various letters were issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dindouri to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur making allegations with regard to involvement of the petitioner in that incident. Pursuant to an FIR, Crime No.60/2009 was registered for commission of various offences. On account of death of four persons, magisterial inquiry was conducted and the report was submitted on 29.12.2009. In the inquiry report dated 29.12.2009, involvement of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and it was allowed vide order dated 12.01.2010. (ii) An article of charge along with the relevant documents were served on the petitioner on 04.03.2010. The charges are reproduced herein below : आरो(cid:3)प दि(cid:2)ाሪ(cid:4)(cid:5)क 10.08.2009 1-" दि(cid:2)ाሪ स्वी(cid:10)क(cid:11) तशु(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:4) अवीक(cid:4)शु क(cid:7) 05 पर रवी(cid:4)ाሪ(cid:4) हो(cid:7)कर क(cid:4)ኘ(cid:20)पर(cid:4)(cid:5)त वी(cid:4)पस ाሪ आकर जा(cid:4)ाሪबू(cid:25)झ कर क(cid:30) क(cid:5) डि!क(cid:4) अाሪ(cid:14)पቝኌ(cid:28)त रहोकर आ(cid:2)(cid:29)शु क(cid:30) अवीहो(cid:29)लाሪ(cid:4) कर प(cid:14).र(cid:29). 64(4) क(cid:4) उल्ल(cid:5)घाሪ कराሪ(cid:4) ।" दि(cid:2)ाሪ(cid:4)(cid:5)क 15.08.2009 2-" स(cid:29) लगा(cid:4)त(cid:4)र अाሪ(cid:4)धि(क(cid:11) त रूप स(cid:29) अाሪ(cid:14)पቝኌ(cid:28)त रहोकर छቈኍ(cid:10)सगाढ़ सिसडिवील स(cid:29)वी(cid:4) (आचरण) डिाሪኘम, -4- एवी(cid:5) छቈኍ(cid:10)सगाढ़ सिसडिवील स(cid:29)वी(cid:4)ኘ2 (अवीक(cid:4)शु) क(cid:29) 1965 डिाሪኘम 1977 डिाሪኘम 7 क(cid:29) डिाሪኘम 13 क(cid:4) उल्ल(cid:5)घाሪ कराሪ(cid:4) ।" म2 डिहोन्दु- ቇኋ(cid:4)म परस(cid:29)ल जिजाल(cid:4) डि!ण्!6र(cid:10) म.्ቚ. 3-" म(cid:14)ቝኌस्लम क(cid:29) बू(cid:10)च भे(cid:29)(cid:2)भे(cid:4)वी उत्प्ቐ कर गाቛኍ(cid:10)र क(cid:4)ाሪ(cid:25)ाሪ ्ቤवी(cid:28)(cid:4) क(cid:30) ቝኌ(cid:28)डित डिाሪኌम@त सिसडिवील स(cid:29)वी(cid:4) कर अर(cid:4)जाकत(cid:4) क(cid:30) (आचरण) त(cid:10)ाሪ एवी(cid:5) डिाሪኘम 06 डिाሪኘम 1965 क(cid:4) उल्ल(cid:5)घाሪ कराሪ(cid:4) ।।" ቝኌ(cid:28)डित उत्प्ቐ कर छ.गा. डिाሪኘम 3 (1) एक, (cid:2)(cid:7), क(cid:29) (iii) The petitioner filed reply to the article of charge. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. After full- fledged inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 27.11.2010, wherein, only allegations No.1 & 2 were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from services against the petitioner on 13.12.2010. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WPS No.4976 of 2011 and vide order dated 31.08.2021, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the said authority to decide it afresh. (iv) The Inspector General of Police vide order dated 01.11.2021 dismissed the appeal. (v) The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority by filing this petition. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would 5 submit that the petitioner remained absent for a period of one month and such unauthorized absence of the petitioner has been treated in contravention to the provision of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,1965 and Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave)Rules,1977. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority found the allegation No.3 not proved. He would further submit that an application was moved for grant of leave and thereafter, the petitioner proceeded to Karanjiya as his brother was missing, therefore, in such a compelling circumstances, he stayed there but the superior authorities were properly intimated through telephonic calls. He would contend that absence of the petitioner from duty was not willful and therefore, penalty of removal inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is disproportionate looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. He would pray to quash both the orders. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Prateek Sharma. He would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from services for a considerable period. He would contend that there were various allegations against the petitioner and FIR was also registered against him. He would -6- contend that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity and all relevant documents were supplied and the petitioner has not challenged the procedural part of the departmental inquiry. He would lastly contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that an FIR No.66/2009 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 332,342, 324,307, 395, 397, 435, 427 of IPC and Section 3 & 5 of the Lok Sampatti Nuksaani Nivaran Adhiniyam was registered against the petitioner but in fact, no such FIR number was registered against the petitioner rather FIR No.60 of 2009 was registered. 7. The brother of the petitioner was missing from 13.07.2009. Initially, the petitioner was granted 3 days leave and thereafter, 15 days leave by the authorities. The petitioner again applied for 30 days leave as whereabouts of his brother was not known to anyone but the authorities concerned granted leave of 5 days from 10.08.2009. At Karanjiya, agitation was going on, therefore, the petitioner could not resume his services after expiry of 5 days leave but he telephonically requested the superior authorities for 7 extension of leaave. The few letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police, Dindouri to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur/Bilaspur making certain allegations against the petitioner and thereafter, article of charge was issued along with the charge-sheet. 8. The Magisterial Inquiry was conducted by the Collector, Dindouri and report was submitted on 29.09.2009, wherein, involvement of the petitioner was not found proved. 9. The petitioner has been removed from services only on the ground that he remained unauthorized absent from services from 15.08.2009 for a considerable period but period of absence is not specifically stated either in the article of charge or in the inquiry report or in order inflicting penalty. 10.It appears that the petitioner remained absent from 15.08.2009 till issuance of order of suspension i.e. 16.09.2009 about one month and in evidence before the disciplinary authority, the petitioner has explained reasons for his absence from duty but the authorities concerned failed to consider it. 11.With regard to registration of criminal case, as informed by Mr. Sharma, till date, charge-sheet has not been filed. 12.Considering the fact that there is no specific allegation with -8- regard to absence from duty for specific period against the petitioner and further there were compelling reasons for the petitioner to remain absent from services and absence was not willful rather it was properly explained, therefore, the penalty inflicted by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by Appellate Authority appears to be disproportionate looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.12.2010 and affirmed by the appellate authority dated 01.11.2021 are hereby quashed. 13.The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14.The claim of arrears of salary and other benefits shall be considered by the authority concerned.
Decision
15.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- Rekha (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge