Partly allowed

Yashwant Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2024WPS/2147/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police Head Constable challenged the DGP's order that, on a mercy appeal, quashed his minor punishment of pay-scale reduction and remitted the case for imposition of major punishment. The court found no provision permitting remand while adjudicating a mercy appeal, and that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing, and quashed the DGP's order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 03.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2 (DGP) quashed; other prayers not addressed.

Yashwant Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶3

2024:CGHC:49069

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2147 of 2020

¶7

Yashwant Dewangan S/o Shri A.R. Dewangan Aged About 56 Years R/o Ramji Yadav Street, Ward No. 59, Hari Nagar, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarters (PHQ), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Office Of Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Office Of Superintendent Of Police (S.P.), Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

12/12/2024

¶19

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

¶20

“ 10.(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal.

¶21

10.(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 3.3.2020 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No. 2/Director General of Police, Raipur (CG) insofar as it relates to the petitioner.

¶22

¶23

10.(iii) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.”

¶24

The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the authority has set aside the order of punishment of reduction in minimum pay scale for one year imposed upon the petitioner by respondent No.4 vide order dated 26.06.2018 and remitted back the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Durg for the imposition of major punishment after the issuance of show cause notice and also seeking reply from the petitioner.

¶25

Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was posted as Head Constable in the Police Department and at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2017. He was posted at Police Station-Traffic Bhilai. On the basis of a written complaint, charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The departmental enquiry culminated in the order of reduction in minimum pay scale for one year and such order was passed on 26.06.2018. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against the order dated 26.06.2018 before respondent No. 3 on 25.07.2018. Respondent No. 3 dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 19.09.2018. The petitioner preferred second appeal before respondent No. 2 on 26.10.2018. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 03.03.2020 quashed the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner and remitted back the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Range Durg to inflict major punishment.

¶26

¶27

Mr. Abhishek Pandey would submit that a mercy appeal was preferred before respondent No. 2 against punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority dated 26.06.2018 and affirmed by respondent No. 3 dated 19.09.2018. He would contend that respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing and without issuance of notice set aside the order of punishment and remitted back the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Durg, Range Durg. He would submit that mercy appeal was not a statutory appeal, therefore, respondent No. 2 had no authority of law to quash the order of punishment and remit back the matter to impose major punishment. He would further submit that no appeal or revision was preferred by the department, therefore, there was no occasion for respondent No. 2 to quash the order.

¶28

On the other hand, Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. He would further submit that respondent No. 2 taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct remitted back the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Durg, Range Durg to impose major punishment. He would contend that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶30

In the present case, the punishment was inflicted by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26.06.2018. The petitioner preferred first appeal on 25.07.2018 before respondent No. 3 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2018. The petitioner preferred mercy appeal before respondent No. 2 and same was decided vide order dated 03.03.2020.

¶31

¶32

Perusal of the order dated 03.03.2020 would show that respondent No.2 while adjudicating mercy appeal quash the order of punishment passed by the respondent No. 4 and affirmed by respondent No. 3, but at the same time, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing. The mercy appeal is not a statutory appeal.

¶33

As appeal was preferred by the delinquent employee, the authority concerned was conferred with the power either to dismiss it or to allow it, but in the rules/regulations, there is no provision to remit back the matter while adjudicating mercy appeal.

¶34

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶35

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

vatti

Yashwant Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kaushal Kumar Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R. a. Shrivastava @ Ram Abhilash Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravindra Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Pyarelal Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemlata Gite Vs State of Chhattisgarh