[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ashish Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:9793-DB
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.02.26
10:27:27
+0530
WA No. 185 of 2026
Ashish Kumar Yadav S/o Mr. Shiv Prasad Yadav Aged About 42 Years
Presently Posted As Inspector At Devendra Nagar Police Station,
Raipur, Resident Of Near Sando Ice Factory, Dayalband, Distt -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Home Affairs
Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capitol Complex, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Genaral Of Police Of Chhattisgarh Police Head Quarters,
Naya Raipur, Dist - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Inspector General Of Police Range Durg Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Inspector General Of Police Range Raipur Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Superintendent Of Police Distt - Raipur, Raipur, Chhattigarh.
6 - Superintendent Of Police Distt - Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh
7 - Inquiry Officer Additional Superintendent Of Police (Rural) Dist -
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
8 - Presenting Officer Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Head Quarter)
Dist. Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr.Raza Ali, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate
General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.02.2026
1. Heard Mr.Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant as well as
Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents/State.
2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated
31.10.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8196 of
2025 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that a complaint
was made by the complainant namely Piyush Tiwari before the IG
regarding certain alleged illegalities committed by the appellant
and the same was also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,
District Durg and on the basis of said complaint, enquiry was
conducted and thereafter a preliminary report dated 17.05.2025
was prepared in which statements of some witnesses were also
recorded and on the basis of preliminary enquiry a regular
departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petitioner was served with the charge sheet
on 10.2.2025 in which following charges were framed.
"1- Fkkuk dqEgkjh ds vijk/k Øekad&192@19 /kkjk 420] 34
Hkknfo] ds izdj.k dh foospuk ds nkSjku fof/kd izko/kkuks a ds
vuq:i dk;Zokgh u dj drZO; ds izfr lafnX/k vkpj.k iznf'kZr
dj e-iz-@N-x- flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e&1965 ds fu;e 3
¼,d½ dk mYya?ku djukA
2- Fkkuk iqjkuh fHkykbZ ds vijk/k Øekad&412@2020 /kkjk 354
¼d½] 384] 34 Hkknfo] 67 vkbZ-Vh-,DV ds izdj.k esa ?kVuk LFky
Fkkuk dqEgkjh dk u gksus ,oa vijk/k ?kfVr gksus laca/kh dksbZ lk{;
ugha gksus ds mijkar Hkh vijk/k iathc) dj drZO; ds izfr lafnX/k
vkpj.k iznf'kZr dj iqfyl jsxqys'ku ds iSjk&64 mi iSjk ¼02½ ,oa
e-iz-@N-x- flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e&1965 ds fu;e&3 ds mi
fu;e ¼d½ dk mYya?ku djukA""
4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner vide his application dated 11.07.2025
has demanded supply of documents in which he prayed for
providing documents pertaining to preliminary enquiry and the
statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry. The said
application was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.5.2025
vide Annexure P/1. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has been
appointed. These orders are being assailed by the writ petitioner
before this Court by filing writ petition, which was disposed of by
learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed
by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, perverse to the record,
and not sustainable in law. The findings recorded are contrary to
the material available on record and have resulted in grave
miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge
has erred in holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate
prejudice caused due to non-supply of documents. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that where a charge memo is
founded upon an inquiry report, the inquiry report along with all
relied-upon documents must be supplied to the delinquent
employee. In the present case, the appellant has specifically
explained the prejudice caused to him. Without access to the
relevant documents and materials relied upon, the appellant is
unable to file an effective reply or take an appropriate defense.
Without knowing the exact nature of the allegations and supporting
material, the appellant cannot reasonably defend himself. Learned
counsel further submits that the order by which the respondent
refused to provide the requested documents is a non-speaking
order. The rejection of the appellant's request was merely on the
ground that a superior authority had directed non-supply, without
assigning any independent reasons. This material aspect was not
properly considered by the learned Single Judge.
6. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly applied
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing that
supply of documents in departmental proceedings is not necessary
unless prejudice is shown. The said principle applies in cases
where no prior demand for documents was made and the issue is
raised only after the final order is passed.
However, in the present case, the proceedings are at an initial
stage and the appellant has specifically demanded the documents
before filing his reply. The appellant has clearly stated that without
the documents, he is unable to prepare his defense. Therefore, the
legal principle has been misapplied. He further submits that the
appellant has categorically pleaded and demonstrated the
prejudice caused to him. Without the documents, he cannot submit
a comprehensive reply, conduct effective cross-examination, or
participate meaningfully in further proceedings. Denial of such
documents directly impairs his right to defend himself. It is further
submitted that though the respondents supplied the inquiry report,
they failed to provide the statements of witnesses recorded during
the inquiry, despite the inquiry report itself referring to and
annexing those statements. Additionally, the inquiry report reveals
that a closure report was prepared and filed before the JMFC;
however, neither the closure report nor the order sheet of the
JMFC was supplied to the appellant.
Such selective and incomplete supply of documents is arbitrary,
illegal, and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The
learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate this aspect and
dismissed the writ petition without addressing these violations
affecting the appellant's fundamental and constitutional rights. It is
contended that the non-supply of essential documents and closure
of the appellant's right to file an effective reply amount to a clear
violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single
Judge has failed to consider this crucial issue. Learned counsel
submits that the appellant has been placed in a position where he
cannot effectively contest the departmental proceedings. Without
knowledge of the statements made by witnesses or the materials
relied upon, the appellant cannot frame appropriate grounds in his
reply. Denial of such opportunity renders the entire proceedings
unfair and unjust. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed
that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and grant appropriate relief to the
appellant in the interest of justice.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single
Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly
disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant
herein, which warrants no interference by this Court.
8. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned
Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has observed that
from bare perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner
before the Enquiry Officer, it is not clear that how the right of the
petitioner is prejudicedly affected unless he is able to show that
these documents are very much required to establish the guilt, no
prejudice can be caused and for supply of documents and the
parameter consideration is the prejudice caused to the
Government servant whereas no such specific averment with
regard to relevancy of the documents or how his right will be
adversely prejudiced has been mentioned in the application or
before this Court. Therefore, his submission that in absence of
statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry or in the report of
Enquiry Officer his right will be prejudiced, is misconceived and
deserves to be rejected. Further reliance of the petitioner in case
of State of UP vs. Shatrughan Lal and another in fact goes
against the petitioner as in this case also the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that relevancy of the document which intended to
be sought during course of enquiry and non supply of it what
prejudice has been caused should be established in clear terms.
Learned Single Judge further observed that in the present case,
the respondent/State in paragraph 28 of their return has
specifically contended that all the relevant documents which are
necessary for adjudication of the case have already been placed
on record and same have been given to the petitioner, therefore,
considering the submission, it is quite vivid that the petitioner
intends to stall the proceedings, therefore, the submission that his
right will be adversely prejudiced by the act of the respondent for
non-supply of document, is misconceived and deserves to be
rejected. Further submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner
has not been given an opportunity to submit his reply to the charge
sheet is also misconceived. Learned Single Judge also observed
that from bare perusal of the charge sheet, it is quite vivid that
opportunity was extended to the petitioner to submit his reply
which has not been availed by him for the reason best known to
him by taking lame excuse of non supply of document. However,
the petitioner is at liberty to take all his permissible deference
available to him in the enquiry proceeding before the Enquiry
Officer.
10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as
also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by
the learned Single Judge while disposing the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity
or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference
by this Court.
11.Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
