Bharat Notiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

(WPS No. 3251 of 2015)

¶3

2024:CGHC:40246

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3251 of 2015

¶6

1 - Bharat Notiya S/o Late Shri G. R. Notiya, Aged About 46 Years R/o Scheme No. 114, House No. H- 1070, Vijaynaga, Police Station Vijaynagar, Indore Madhya Pradesh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Inspector General Of Police, Office Of The Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Superintendent Of Police, Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, South Bastar Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner :-Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :-Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶16

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶17

14.10.2024

¶18

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated

¶19

18.10.2007 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Superintendent

¶20

2 / 5

¶21

(WPS No. 3251 of 2015)

¶22

of Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker, whereby the petitioner has been demoted to the minimum pay scale of Rs.4500/- on the post of Sub-Inspector and is also challenging order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure P/4), by which the appellate authority/respondent No.3, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, though set aside the order dated 18.10.2007, but the petitioner was demoted to the minimum pay scale for two years.

¶23

2. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are in violation of the proviso under Section 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and also in violation of Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Angad Singh Rathore v. State of MP, 2010(1) MPLJ 171.

¶24

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that the orders passed by both the authorities are strictly in accordance with law and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

3 / 5

¶26

(WPS No. 3251 of 2015)

¶27

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

5. In the case at hand, admittedly, vide order dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner after due enquiry proceedings was imposed with a penalty of reduction to a minimum pay scale of Rs.4500/- on the post of Sub-Inspector. However, the said order dated 18.10.2007 of the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker was revoked by the appellate authority vide order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure P/4), in exercise of revisional powers under Section 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations but at the same time, major penalty of reduction to a minimum pay scale on the post of SubInspector for two years, was imposed upon the petitioner.

¶29

6. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be profitable to notice Section 270(4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, which states as under :-

¶30

xxx xxx

¶31

“ 27. (1) xxx xxx xxx

¶32

(2) xxx xxx xxx

¶33

(3) xxx

¶34

(4) The revising authority may for reason to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may order a

¶35

4 / 5

¶36

(WPS No. 3251 of 2015)

¶37

fresh enquiry of the taking of further evidence in the case:

¶38

Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard. ”

¶39

7. As such, evidently and undisputedly, the proviso to Section 270(4) has not been complied with and while reversing the order of punishment imposed, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Similarly, in the matter of Angad Singh Rathore (supra) it has been held that in absence of any provision in the Police Regulations prescribing limitation for taking the matter in suo motu revision, Rule 29(1)(iii) of the CCA Rules, 1966 gets attracted. Rule 29(1)(iii) provides that the appellate authority may review the order proposed to be reviewed within six months. In view thereof, the suo motu powers could not have been exercised by the Director General of Police therein after 6 months of initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner therein and, therefore, the order of DGP in Angad Singh Rathore (supra) was quashed.

¶40

8. In that view of the matter, since there is no evidence that any notice was served or any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before varying/reversing the

¶41

5 / 5

¶42

(WPS No. 3251 of 2015)

¶43

order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, the impugned order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure P/4) is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the office of the Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Furthermore, the question of limitation in filing the said appeal and the procedure of departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner shall also be considered/decided by the appellate authority while considering his appeal afresh and the petitioner shall also appear before the appellate authority on 11.11.2024 and submit his additional plea and documents, if any, in support of his appeal, which shall also be considered and decided by the appellate authority.

¶44

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of . No cost(s).

¶45

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶46

@d!t!

Bharat Notiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Notiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika Manikpuri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhageerathi Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sashi Sharma Alias Ganesia Bai Vs Smt. Meena Sharma

Ramnath Ram Rawani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohini Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Thapa Vs State Of Chhattisgarh