Allowed¶33

Sankalp Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2025WPS/1244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 1244 of 2021, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, 02/04/2025: DGP's order dated 02/02/2021 cancelling police Sub Inspector (Computer)'s promotion order dated 14/10/2014 (post-DPC 01/10/2014) quashed for violation of natural justice — no pre-decisional notice or hearing, State produced nothing otherwise; administrative orders involving civil consequences must follow natural justice; liberty reserved to State to re-examine promotion vis-a-vis C.G. Police Karyapalik (Arajpatrit) Sewa Bharti Niyam, 2006; writ petition allowed; no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned cancellation order dated 02/02/2021 quashed, with liberty reserved to the State to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to examine the promotion order. ¶33

Sankalp Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned cancellation order dated 02/02/2021 quashed, with liberty reserved to the State to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to examine the promotion order.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02/02/2021 issued by respondent No.2/Director General of Police cancelling the petitioner's promotion was vitiated for having been passed without notice and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, i.e., in violation of the principles of natural justice. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Liberty is reserved to the State to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to examine the order by which the petitioner was granted promotion from the post of Head Constable (Computer) to the post of Sub Inspector (Computer).

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Before issuance of the cancellation order dated 02/02/2021, no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, and the State failed to submit or produce anything showing otherwise; the impugned order cancelling the promotion was therefore passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶27

Key takeaways

Where there is a power to decide and to decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, the duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power, and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.ratio¶28
Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.ratio¶31
The impugned order dated 02/02/2021 passed by respondent No.2/Director General of Police cancelling the petitioner's promotion is quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPS No. 1244 of 2021) allowed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, single Judge) by order dated 02/04/2025. The petitioner, working as Sub Inspector (Computer) in the State Crime Record Bureau/CID, challenged the order dated 02/02/2021 issued by respondent No.2/Director General of Police cancelling his promotion order dated 14/10/2014, whereby he had been promoted from Head Constable (Computer) to Sub Inspector (Computer) on the recommendation of the DPC held on 01/10/2014, and had worked in the promotional post thereafter. Held: before passing the cancellation order, neither notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and the State failed to produce anything to show otherwise; the order, which involved civil consequences, was therefore passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Where a power exists to decide detrimentally to a person's prejudice, the duty to act judicially is implicit; even administrative orders involving civil consequences must comply with natural justice. The impugned order dated 02/02/2021 was quashed, with liberty reserved to the State to examine the promotion order in accordance with law.

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2025:CGHC:15435

¶3

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.02 17:40:38 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1244 of 2021

¶7

1 - Sankalp Rai S/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Rai Aged About 40 Years Occupation Service, Working As Sub Inspector Of Police (Computer) State Crime Record Bureau, Crime Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home (Police), Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Home (Police) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director General of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Inspector General of Police Crime Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration / Accounts / Personnel) Police Headquarters, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

For Petitioners	: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Promay Golekha with Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate
For Respondents/	: Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A.
State

¶18

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

02/04/2025

¶21

In the present writ petition, the petitioner presently posted as a Sub-Inspector(Computer) is questioning the order dated 02/02/2021 issued by the respondent No.2/ Director General of Police (DGP), by which, the promotion order of dated 14/10/2014, by which, the petitioner has been promoted from the post of Head Constable (Computer) to the post of Sub Inspector (Computer) has been cancelled.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of promotion dated 14/10/2014 has been granted to the petitioner after the recommendation of the DPC held on 01/10/2014 and the petitioner joined to the promotion post of Sub Inspector (Computer) and worked till today. The impugned order of cancelling the promotion has been issued by the DGP in clear violation of principles of natural justice as before issuance of order of cancellation of promotion, no opportunity of hearing and no notice has been issued to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner has been deprived to explain the reason for which the order of promotion has been cancelled.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the DGP

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

has examined the order of promotion and the proceedings of DPC, from which, they found that the promotion order has been issued and the DPC has recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion in clear violation of the Rule prescribed under the C.G. Police Karyapalik (Arajpatrit) Sewa Bharti Niyam, 2006 and the petitioner is not eligible and entitled for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Computer)

¶26

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

¶27

It appears from the order of DGP that before passing the order of cancellation of the promotion, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the petitioner has been deprived from submitting any explanation to the reason, for which, the order of promotion has been cancelled. The State is also failed to submit or produce anything showing that before issuance of cancellation order, any notice has been issued to the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned, by which, the order of promotion has been cancelled, has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶28

It is the well settled proposition of law that if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.

¶29

It is also the trite law that the adherence to principles of natural

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

justice as recognized by all civilized states is of supreme importance or when a quasi judicial body embarks on determining dispute between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is an issue. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consisted with the rules of natural justice.

¶32

The order impugned dated 02/02/2021 passed by the respondent No.2/Director General of Police is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to examine the order by which, the promotion has been granted to the petitioner from the post of Head Constable (Computer) to the post of Sub Inspector (Computer).

¶33

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶36

Amardeep

Sankalp Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankalp Rai 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimla Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asma Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umashankar Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanha Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bindu Choubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh