Chattisgarh High Court

Shailesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025

                                              1




Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
                                                             2025:CGHC:38560
Date: 2025.08.07
19:48:57 +0530                                                               NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 8406 of 2022
 * - Shailesh Kumar Singh S/o Bir Bahadur Singh Aged About 32 Years Ex-
 Constable (No 37), E-Company, First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force,
 Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ... Petitioner
                                          Versus
 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home
 (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District
 Raipur Chhattisgarh.
 3 - The Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head
 Quarter-Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
 4 - The Commandant, First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilai,
 District Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                                     ... Respondents

 For Petitioner                       :        Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate

 For Respondents/State                :        Ms. Shailja Shukla,
                                               Deputy Government Advocate


                      Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                                    Order on Board

 04/08/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to set aside/quash the impugned the Order dated 27.07.2021 issued by the Commandant, First Battalion, CAF, Bhilai (ANNEXURE P/1); Order dated 04.03.2022 issued by the Inspector General of Police, CAF, Raipur (ANNEXURE P/2) as well as Order dated

13.09.2022 issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur (ANNEXURE P/3).

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus whereby to direct to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with back wages and all the consequential benefits.

10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, 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. Mr. Sushil Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Constable

(GD) under E Company, First Battalion, CAF, Bhilai, Camp- Police Line,

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). He would further submit that while the

petitioner was posted at that place, an FIR for the commission of

offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC was registered against

the petitioner on 06.05.2020. The petitioner was arrested and he

remained in jail for a considerable period. The article of charge was

issued against the petitioner on account of the registration of FIR by

the Department on 14.07.2020. A full-fledged departmental inquiry was

conducted and an order of dismissal from services was passed by

respondent No.4 on 27.07.2021. He would contend that the petitioner

preferred a departmental appeal and the same was dismissed by

respondent No.3 on 04.03.2022. He would further contend that the

learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, District Durg acquitted the

petitioner from charges vide judgment dated 24.06.2022. He would

state that the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before respondent

No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2022. He would

also state that according to the provisions of Regulation 241 of the

Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, 1861 (for short 'the Police Regulation

241'), after clean acquittal, the petitioner, who was constable, is entitled

to reinstatement in the service. In support of his submissions, he

placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.83/2016 wherein it is held that

"Police Constable is entitled to be reinstated as a matter of right by

Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations on clean

acquittal". He would submit that the petitioner was acquitted by the

learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) and

therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have reinstated the

petitioner in service by virtue of the Police Regulation 241.

3. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, the learned Deputy

Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the

submissions made by Mr. Sushil Dubey. Ms. Shukla would submit that

though the petitioner has been acquitted, it is nowhere stated that his

acquittal was honorable. She would further contend that the

appropriate authority has already decided the claim of the petitioner for

reinstatement. She would also submit that there are concurrent

findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authorities.

She would further submit that if the acquittal of the petitioner is not

honourable, he would not get the benefit of the Police Regulation 241.

She would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be

dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the documents placed on record.

5. Admittedly, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the

commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC on

06.05.2020. The petitioner was arrested by the police, thereafter the

article of charge was issued and a departmental inquiry was initiated

against him. After a full-fledged departmental inquiry, the punishment of

dismissal from service was inflicted on the petitioner by respondent

No.4 vide order dated 27.07.2021. A departmental appeal was

preferred and the same was also dismissed by respondent No. 3. The

petitioner was acquitted by the learned VI th Additional Sessions Judge,

Durg, District Durg (C.G.) vide judgment dated 24.06.2022.

6. A perusal of the judgment would show that the petitioner has been

given a clean acquittal by the concerned Court.

7. The petitioner thereafter preferred a mercy appeal before respondent

No.2 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2022 by

respondent No.2.

8. Police Regulation 241 reads as under:-

"241. Cases of acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated: He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however the acquittal, whether in the court of original jurisdiction or of appeal was based on technical grounds. Or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General."

9. From a bare reading of Police Regulation 241, it is quite vivid that if a

constable has been given a clean acquittal by the competent Criminal

Court, he would be entitled to reinstatement in the services.

10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar

Sahu (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paras 8,9,18 & 20

held as under:-

"8. In order to consider the plea as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 241 of the said Regulations which states as under: -

241. Cases of acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated: He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however the acquittal, whether in the court of original jurisdiction or of appeal was based on technical grounds. Or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General."

A careful perusal of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations would show that it is an exception to the rule applicable to the police force providing that once an employee has been acquitted by the criminal court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service and he may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constituted the sole ground of punishment. However, Regulation 241 also carves out a caveat that if the order of acquittal is based on technical grounds or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector General.

18.In view of the finding recorded herein-above, charges in criminal trial and departmental proceeding are substantially one and same. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhagat, learned State counsel, that charges framed against the petitioner i.e. based on departmental proceeding and criminal trial are different, is hereby rejected.

20.Accordingly, the order dated 13-4-2015 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 9-12- 2015 passed by the appellate authority, both, are set aside and consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 7-4-1995 terminating the services of the petitioner, is also hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential service benefits except back-wages. However, the issue of back-wages will be considered by the

competent authority in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to make submission that he is entitled for full back- wages."

11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the provision of

Police Regulation 241 and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench

of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra), in the

opinion of this Court, respondent No. 2 committed an error of law in

rejecting the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner, therefore, the

order dated 13.09.2022 is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities

are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The

petitioner would be at liberty to move an application claiming therein

arrears of salary in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules

before the competent authority and the authority concerned is directed

to decide the representation so made within a period of 60 days from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.