Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Narendra Kumar Yadav on 1 September, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2025:CGHC:44181-DB
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.09.03
10:38:38
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 638 of 2025
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director General Of Police Police Headquarter Raipur District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
(All The Appellants Are Respondents In Writ Petition)
... Appellants
versus
Narendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shani Ram Yadav Aged About 30 Years
Was Earlier Posted At Police Constable Police Line Mahasamund R/o -
Parwati Nagar, Near Vidya Jyoti School Gudhiyari Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh (Respondent In The Writ Petition)
... Respondent
For Appellants/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate
General
For Respondent : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.09.2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for condonation of delay.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the
application, the same is allowed. Delay of 106 days in fling of the
appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The State/appellants/respondents in writ petition has filed this
writ appeal assailing the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.2065 of 2015, by
which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition.
4. The brief facts of the case as projected by the writ petitioner
(respondent herein) in WPS No. 2065/2015 are that the petitioner
was working as Constable No.365 at Police Station -
Mahasamund. He along with other Head Constables i.e. Head
Constable No.245 Alexius Minj, Constable no.315 Deepak Vidani,
Constable No.364 Sanjeet Singh and Constable No.357 Suryakant
Singh Thakur were served with a charge sheet with charges as
mentioned herein below-
(1) आरक्षक कमांक 365 नरेन्द्र यादव, आरक्षक कमांक. 357 सुर्यकांत
सिंह आरक्षक कमांक 264 संजीत सिंह,आरक्षक कमांक 315 दीपक
विदानी द्वारा :-
01-दिनांक 24.01.2013 को प्रातः बिना अनुमति मंच सुरक्षा ड्यूटी स्थल
छोड़कर रक्षित के न्द्र महासमसुंद में आमद दिये बिना बाला-बाला आर्म्स
एम्युनेशन जमा कर कर्तब्य के प्रति घारे उदासीनता बरतना।
02-महासमुंद नक्सल प्रभावित जिला होने के बावजूद दिनांक 24.01.2013
की रात्रि में गणतंत्र दिवस समारोह स्थल मिनी स्टेडियम मंच की सुरक्षा गार्ड
की ड्यूटी गंभीरतापूर्वक एवं सतर्क ता पूर्वक ना कर गैरजिम्मेदारी पूर्वक ड्यूटी
करना, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप 01 इंसास रायफल बट नम्बर 42 एवं 20 नग
कारतुस की चोरी होने जैसी गंभीर घटना घटित होने की स्थिति निर्मित होना,
जिससे आम जनता में पुलिस की छवि धूमिल होना।
(2) प्रधान आरक्षक कमांक 245 अलेकसियुस मिंज द्वाराः-
दिनांक 24.01.2013 को गणतंत्र दिवस समारोह स्थल मिनीस्टेडियम मंच
की सुरक्षा गार्ड प्रभारी के रूप में गाईस चैंकिग के दौरान आर्म्स एम्युनेशन
चेक नही करना एवं गार्ड आरक्षकों की लापरवाही बाबत् सक्त निर्देश न देकर
कर्तब्य के प्रति घोर उदासीनता बरतना।
5. Reply to the said charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner
which was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, a departmental
enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and other delinquent
employees. Statement of the witnesses were recorded during the
departmental enquiry and documents were also exhibited.
Report of departmental enquiry was also supplied to the
petitioner who submitted his reply and ultimately vide order
dated 22/08/2013 Superintendent of Police terminated the Head
Constable No.245 Alexius Minj, Constable no.315 Deepak Vidani
and the present petitioner. A major punishment of demotion on
minimum pay scale of the Constable for two years was imposed
upon Constable No.357 Suryakant Singh Thakur and Constable
no.364 Sanjeet Singh. The petitioner preferred a departmental
appeal before the Inspector General of Police which was
dismissed vide order dated 16/01/2014 affirming the order of
termination passed by the Superintendent of Police and a
revision petition was also filed before the DGP against the order
passed by the IGP which was also dismissed by it vide its order
dated 19/01/2015.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition by the order impugned and has
observed as under:-
"7. The petitioner has not challenged the departmental
enquiry on the ground that during the course of
departmental enquiry, he was not afforded opportunity
of hearing on merits of the case. Challenge is on three
counts. Firstly, the Rules of 1966 have not been strictly
adhere to, secondly, the enquiry officer and the
presenting officer are one and the same and the enquiry
officer has examined and cross-examined the witnesses
including cross examination of the petitioner and
thirdly, the other delinquent employee who were
proceeded in the departmental enquiry along with the
petitioner have succeeded in their writ petitions and
their termination orders were set aside and therefore,
the judgment in their case would follow in the case of
the petitioner.
8.The perusal of record indicates that a joint charge-
sheet was issued against the petitioner and other
delinquent employees. A departmental enquiry was also
conducted against them. Three delinquent employees
were punished with major penalty of termination from
service and the other two employees were awarded with
different major punishment of demotion on minimum
pay scale of the constable of minimum pay of two years.
Record also reflect that the other delinquent employees
Alexius Minj and Deepak Vidani preferred the above writ
petitions and those writ petitions were allowed on the
ground that there is violation of Rule 18 of the Rules of
1966. For ready reference, Rule 18 is quoted herein
below -
"Common proceedings - (1) Where two or more
Government servants are concerned in any case, the
Governor or any other authority competent to
impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all
such Government servants may make an order
directing that disciplinary action against all of them
may be taken in a common proceeding.
Note - If the authorities competent to impose the
penalty of dismissal on such Government servants
are different, an order for taking disciplinary action
in a common proceeding may be made by the
highest of such authorities with the consent of the
others.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule
12, any such order shall specify :
(i) the authority which may function as the
disciplinary authority for the purpose of such
common proceeding;
(ii) the penalties specified in Rule 10 which such
disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose;
and
(iii) whether the procedure laid down in Rule 14 and
Rule 15 or Rule 16 shall be followed in the
proceeding."
9. Therefore, as the other delinquent employees have
been granted relief by this Court in WPS No.821/2014
and WPS No.3326/2015 and as such, no appeal has
been preferred against those orders, the orders have
attained finality. It is not in dispute that they have also
proceeded the petitioner with the departmental enquiry,
therefore, the law laid down by this Court in those writ
petitions would squarely apply in the case of the
petitioner also. Apart from this, it has to be seen that
the enquiry officer was also the presenting officer and it
is not permissible in the light of judgment of this Court
in WPS No.1166/2011 and similar legal position has
been enumerated by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.362/2023.
10. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner's case cannot be
segregated with the case of Alexuis Minj and Deepak
Vidani and also deserve the same relief which have been
granted to them. Therefore, the impugned orders
Annexure P/1, Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 are set
aside and quashed. The petitioner is re-instated in
service with all service benefits. Since the writ petition is
allowed on technical grounds, State would be at liberty
to proceed against the petitioner if so advised in
accordance with law. "
7. Learned counsel for the State/appellants/respondents submit
that learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned
judgment. He further submits that looking to the serious nature
of charges leveled against the respondent herein (writ
petitioner), a full fledged departmental enquiry was conducted.
Evidence were recorded and proper opportunity to defend
himself was afforded to the writ petitioner and the grounds
which have been raised have never been raised have never been
raised in the departmental enquiry. He further submits that
respondent herein is the sole responsible for the Rifle handled
by him and the missing Rifle was in his possession under his
responsibility. He further submits that there was a grave lapse
on the part of the respondent herein which had resulted into
serious consequence of loss of INSAS (Indian Small Arms
Systems) Rifle with 20 bullets/Cartridges. It will not be needless
to mention here that the weapon INSAS Rifle lost due to lapse in
duty of the respondent is a sophisticated automatic weapon with
which the police personnel of Naxalite affected area have been
armed. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single
Judge has failed to appreciate that the departmental appeal and
revision were duly considered and dismissed by competent
authorities after application of mind, which were never shown to
be perverse or passed in violation of natural justice.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner would submit that along with the
respondent, other delinquent employees namely Alexius Minj
and Deepak Vidani have challenged their termination order
before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ
petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry against all the
delinquent employees were conducted and a notice to initiate
such departmental enquiry against all the delinquent employee
as required under Rule 18 of Civil Services Classification and
Control Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules of 1966') has not been
complied with, therefore, from the very inception, the
departmental enquiry was bad in law and it has vitiated the
same. He further submits that no presenting officer was
appointed in the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer
has acted as a presenting officer and also examined and cross-
examined the respondent and the witnesses which also vitiates
the departmental enquiry. He further submits that the
delinquent employee Alexius Minj who was also proceeded with
the writ petitioner in the departmental enquiry preferred a
petition i.e. WPS No.821/2014 against his termination which was
allowed by this Court vide its order dated 02/05/2024. Likewise,
the delinquent employee Constable No.315 Deepak Vidani also
filed writ petition No.3326/2015 challenging the same
departmental enquiry which was also allowed by this Court vide
order dated 26/06/2024 and their termination was set aside and
they were directed to be reinstated in service. He submits that
the issue with regard to non-appointment of the presenting
officer and enquiry officer acting as presenting officer is no
longer res integra in the light of judgment of this Court in WPS
No.1166/2011 passed on 01/10/2018 wherein this Court has held
that if the enquiry officer acts as a presenting officer, the enquiry
would be vitiated. The said order was subject to challenge by the
State before the Division Bench in W.A. No.500/19 and the writ
appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed vide
judgment dated 31/08/2021 affirming the order passed by this
Court in WPS No.1166/2011. In this regard, he also placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in
W.A.No.362/2023 passed on 12/09/2023 wherein also the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court approved the said legal issue. He
further submits that the order of the writ petition of the other
delinquent employees proceeded along with the petitioner has
not been challenged by the State Government, the same would
apply in the case of the writ petitioner also. According to the
writ petitioner, while allowing the writ petitions of similarly
situated persons, no such liberty was given to the State to
proceed against them and even the State has not filed writ
appeal against the orders passed in the said writ petitions. In
the case at hand, the authorities are acting in a biased manner
against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available in the record.
10. The short issue on which the departmental enquiry was
questioned was that in absence of Presenting Officer having
been appointed in the departmental enquiry conducted against
the writ petitioner, the Enquiry Officer himself examined and
cross-examined the witnesses when evidence on behalf of the
delinquent employee and his witnesses were produced,
therefore, the enquiry is vitiated.
11. The State/appellant has not disputed the fact that the Presenting
Officer has not been appointed in the instant case and the
enquiry officer himself examined and cross-examined the
witnesses. The only submission of the State is that the enquiry
was conducted after affording due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Even the State has not disputed the fact that they
have not filed writ appeals in respect of the orders passed by the
writ petition with regard to the petitions filed by similarly
situated police personnel and in those case liberty was not given
to the State to proceed against those persons.
12. After considering the entire aspects of the matter, we are of the
view that in a case where an Enquiry Officer is appointed, he is
not entitled to examine a delinquent or his witnesses. The same
can be done only by the Presenting Officer appointed by the
Disciplinary Authority. In the case at hand, it is an admitted
position that when the witnesses of the delinquent employee
were examined, they were cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer,
not by the Presenting Officer.
13. In the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan
Sharma, [(2018) 7 SCC 670: 2018 CJ (SC) 557] the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held thus at paras 30 and 37:
"30. This Court had occasion to observe in Workmen of
Lambabari Tea Estate that if the Enquiry Officer did not
keep his function as Enquiry Officer but becomes
prosecutor, the inquiry is vitiated. The following was
observed: (FLR p.362)
"The inquiry which was held by the management on
the first charge was presided over by the manager
himself. It was conducted in the presence of the
Assistant Manager and two others. The enquiry was
not correct in its procedure. The manager recorded
the statements, cross examined the labourers who
were the offenders and made and recorded his own
statements on facts and questioned the offending
labourers about the truth of his own statements
recorded by himself. The manager did not keep his
function as the enquiring officer distinct but became
witness, prosecutor and manager in turns. The record
of the enquiry as a result is staccato and
unsatisfactory."
XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that
Enquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the
capacity of independent adjudicator was lost while
adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator.
In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come
into play and the High Court was right in setting aside
the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants
to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that
our observations as made above are in the facts of the
present cases."
14.In Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) at para 31 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the matter of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Naseem
Siddiqui, [2005-I-LLJ 931 MP].
15.The law is, thus, well settled that the Enquiry Officer cannot act
as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
Whether or not in a given case the enquiry is vitiated would
depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
16.It is noteworthy to mention here that in respect of orders passed
by the learned Writ Court in the cases of similarly situated police
personnel, wherein their respective writ petitions have been
allowed and further directed for their reinstatement, the State
has not filed writ appeals whereas in the instant case they have
filed the writ appeal, which appears to be biased.
17. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered
view that while passing the order impugned in respect of
quashment of order of termination, appellate order as well as the
revisional order by the Superintendent of Police, Inspector
General of Police and the Director General of Police, respectively,
the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality,
irregularity or jurisdictional error. The same is just and proper,
warranting no interference of this Court. However, the liberty
given to the State by the learned Single Judge to proceed against
the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law, is hereby set
aside, because while dealing with the cases of other similarly
situated persons such liberty has not been given by the writ
Court to the State. Even the orders passed in the writ petition
filed by other two delinquent employees have not been
challenged by the State shows that, the State authorities are
acting against the present writ petitioner in a biased manner.
18. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid
modification.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
shoaib/Gowri
