Chattisgarh High Court
R.K.S. Jaysindhu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:29944
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7417 of 2018
1 - R.K.S. Jaysindhu S/o Late Ramlal Jaysindhu Aged About 59 Years Working
As Inspector, Police Training School, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Head Quarter, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Inspector General Of Police Sarguja Range Sarguja Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Superintendent Of Police District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
5 - Inquiry Officer Additional Superintendent Of Police, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate
For State/respondent : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
02.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief :-
“10.1 To call for entire records from respondents
pertaining to the case and the case decided by
respondent no. 3 for kind perusal.
10.2 To set aside the impugned appellate order annexure
P/13 dated 23.05.2018.
-2-
10.3 To set aside the impugned order annexure P/7 dated
21.09.2016, enquiry report (annexure P/5) and the order
dated 30.09.2016 (annexure P/8).
10.4 To direct respondents to pay to Petitioner all
consequential benefits including the entire salary
emoluments etc. for the period 24.10.2007 to 18.06.2013
in the interest of justice.
10.5 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in
facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the
petitioner was working as Inspector. Disciplinary Proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge sheet levelling
two charges which reads as under :
“(i) While in the responsible post of Station Incharge/Thana
Prabhari, in misuse of police power committed indecent behavior
and used filthy language upon complainant Taj Mohammad at
Village Rawatipur, P.S. Ramchandrapur at public place on
28.02.1995 thus committed dereliction of duty and indiscipline thus
tainted the image of police in public.
(ii) In complaint case No. 437/95 before Hon’ble Court of JMFC
Ramanujganj culminated in conviction and sentence of one month
rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and Rs. 1,000/- for offence punishable
under section 294 of I.P.C. thus becoming unfit for Government
service.”
The Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner
by issuance of charge sheet. The Enquiry has been conducted in
violation of principle of natural justice in as much that Presenting
Officer was not appointed and the Enquiry Officer assumed the
role of Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted its report
and Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of lowering equal to
one increment with cumulative effect, (Annexure P/7) dated
21.09.2016 against the petitioner. By order dated
30.09.2016(Annexure P/8), the period from 24.10.2007 to
18.06.2013 was decided as no work no pay while remaining
terminated from service. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved
3
by the impugned orders dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P/7) and
30.09.2016 (Annexure P/8), preferred Departmental Appeal, which
was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
23.05.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the
Presenting Officer was not appointed and the Enquiry Officer
himself acted as a Presenting Officer. Conduct of Departmental
Enquiry in absence of a Presenting Officer is clearly against the
principle of natural justice and fair-play and therefore, on this count
alone, the entire Departmental Enquiry and the orders of
punishment are liable to be quashed. He further submits that this
matter is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate Bench
passed in the matter of B.P. Tiwari Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. [W.P.
(S) No.4699/2012 order date 05.07.2018] & Vijay Pandey Vs.
State of C.G. & Ors [WP(S) No.966/2013 order date 03.02.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the prayer of the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner has failed to show that
what prejudice caused to him. Learned State counsel further
submits that the Departmental Enquiry can be conducted without a
Presenting Officer and it is not essential that in every case the
Department must appoint a Presenting Officer before enquiry as
such, this petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
6. In W.P.(S) No.966/2013, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
observed in paras 6, 7 and 8, which are as follows :-
-4-
“6. Relying on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of
Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Railway, New
Delhi and Others V. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, reported in 2005
(1) LLJ 931; State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh,
reported in 2008(8) SCC 236; State of U.P. & others Vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and others orders
passed by this High Court, the co-ordinate Bench in WPS
No.4699/2012, parties being BP Tiwari Vs. State of CG & Ors.
while dealing with issue of effect of non-appointment of
Presenting Officer, as involved in present writ petition, has
decided the same in favour of the petitioner therein.
7. Perusal of record would reveal that no person was appointed
as Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer himself acted as a
Presenting Officer, led evidence on behalf Department,
examined and cross-examined the witnesses. In a
departmental enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Officer holds
the position of a Judge, and the Presenting officer holds the
position of a prosecutor. In present case, the Enquiry Officer
acted as judge and prosecutor both, which is not permissible in
law. Hence, the entire departmental enquiry conducted against
petitioner herein along with orders passed thereon gets
vitiated.
8. In the above circumstance and in light of the fact that issue
involved in this petition is identical to WPS No.4699/2012
decided by co-ordinate Bench following aforementioned
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is also
allowed. Impugned orders dated 31.12.2012 & 28.2.2012
(Annexure P-11 & P-13) and enquiry report dated dated
13.12.2012 (Annexure P-10) are hereby quashed. However,
the respondents will be at liberty to proceed further in case, if
they fell so, in accordance with law. As a result of quashment of
punishment order, petitioner as of now would be entitled for all
consequential benefits.”
7. In this case also the Enquiry Officer is Additional
Superintendent of Police, who is higher official to the
petitioner and no person was appointed as Presenting
Officer. The Enquiry Officer himself acted as Presenting
Officer, led evidence on behalf of Department, examined and
cross-examined the witnesses.
8. In view of above circumstances and in light of order passed
by co-ordinate Bench this Court in the matter of Vijay
Pandey (supra) and decision of Hon’ble Apex Court referred
herein above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 21.09.2016, 30.09.2016, 23.05.2018 and Enquiry
Report are hereby quashed. However, the respondents will
5
be at liberty to proceed further in case, if they feel so, in
accordance with law. As a result of quashment of punishment
order, the petitioner as of now would be entitled for all
consequential benefits. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha