Sushil Kumar Banchhor vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6987 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Writ Appeal No. 623 of 2022

Sushil Kumar Banchhor, S/o Late Shri Topsingh Banchhor, aged about 58
years, R/o Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir Sargaon, Police Station
Sargaon, Tahsil - Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.).

                                                                ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of
      Home/Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station and
      Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

2.    Director General of Police (DGP) Police Headquarters (PHQ), Near
      Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station and Post-Rakhi, Atal Nagar,
      New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3.    Inspector General of Police (IGP), Office of Inspector General of
      Police (IGP) Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4.    Superintendent of Police (SP) Office of Superintendent of Police
      (SP), Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.).

5.    Enquiry Officer/Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDOP) Lormi, District
      Mungeli (C.G.).

6.    Enquiry    Officer/Deputy    Superintendent       of    Police   (DSP),
      Headquarters, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

                                                             ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

21.11.2022

Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing

for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 17.08.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 5013 of 2020.

3. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, while he was working

as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in District Mungeli.

4. After conclusion of the enquiry, by an order dated 11.08.2017

issued by respondent No. 3, the salary of the writ petitioner was reduced

to the lower scale of ASI for two years.

5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by an

order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2.

6. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the enquiry

proceedings is vitiated because the petitioner was cross-examined by the

Enquiry Officer as a prosecutor in absence of a Presenting Officer being

appointed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the learned Single

Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows:

"11. On the basis of enquiry, which is vitiated by this

Court for the reasons mentioned above, the disciplinary

authority and appellate authority have passed the

impugned order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P/11) &

appellate order dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P/13) are set

aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary

authority to appoint presenting officer and the enquiry

officer shall conduct the departmental enquiry from the

stage from where enquiry is found to be defective i.e. from

the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner and

examination of the witness of the petitioner, if any. The

enquiry officer is further directed to complete the enquiry

proceeding within one year from the date of receipt of copy

of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate

with the respondents to complete the enquiry proceeding

within stipulated time period given by this Court.

12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

instant writ petition is partly allowed."

7. Mr. Pandey submits that the Enquiry Officer had conducted regular

examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the

prosecution case, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not

justified in directing commencement of the proceedings from the stage of

cross-examination and it should have been from the stage of evidence of

the witnesses.

8. Mr. Ahluwalia submits that although the learned Single Judge had

directed commencement of the enquiry afresh from the stage of cross-

examination of witnesses, apart from appointing a new Enquiry Officer, a

decision was taken to commence the proceedings from the stage of

examination of witnesses and in this connection, he has produced before

the Court an order dated 17.10.2022.

9. Having regard to the above submissions, though we are of the

opinion that grievance expressed by the petitioner is redressed, we

deem it appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the

effect that the departmental enquiry shall be commenced from the stage

of examination-in-chief of the witnesses.

10. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

                          Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                  (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Sanjay Agrawal)
                      Chief Justice                               Judge




Brijmohan