Bhan Singh Dohre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:31236

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

HARNEET KAUR

¶6

Digitally signed by HARNEETKAUR Date: 2025.07.11 11:54:00 +0530

¶7

Writ Petition (S) No. 3073 of 2016

¶8

Bhan Singh Dohre S/o Bhawani Lal Dohre, Aged About 30 Years Ex Constable No 285, R/o Police Line, Jashpur, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o At Kadamtoli, Jashpur, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Police Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Inspector General Of Police, Surguja Range, Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

Superintendent Of Police, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Station House Officer, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

2

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate

¶19

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

¶20

07.07.2025

¶21

1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 2, being the appellate authority, by which the appeal filed by him against his order of termination dated 28/05/2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 4, has been dismissed.

¶22

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

¶23

(I) Petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable (GD) and on 18/04/2009, he was assigned duty as a Security Guard for examination purposes at Government Girls Middle School, Jashpur Nagar. On 17/04/2009, he collected his service rifle bearing Butt No. 222 along with three magazines containing a total of 60 rounds. At that time, he was residing in a rented accommodation at

¶24

3

¶25

Kadamtoli, Jashpur Nagar where Constable Jitendra Verma was also residing in a nearby rented house.

¶26

(ii) It is the case of the respondents/Police Department that petitioner proceeded to discharge his official duty in plain clothes, having left his service rifle unattended at his residence, which was used by Constable Jitendra Verma for committing suicide and as such, petitioner, having violated the provisions contained in Regulation 64(2) and 64(6) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations (hereinafter, “Police Regulations”) as well as Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, “the Rules of 1965”), was suspended from service on 19/04/2009.

¶27

(iii) Thereafter, on 14/09/2009, charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner wherein the following three charges were levelled against him :-

¶28

(a) that, the petitioner exhibited gross negligence in the discharge of his official duties by leaving the service rifle allotted to him unattended at his residence, thereby, contravening the provisions of Regulation 64(2) of the Police Regulations and Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1965.

¶29

(b) that, the petitioner reported for duty without wearing the prescribed uniform and left his service arm behind,

¶30

4

¶31

thereby committing an act of gross negligence in the performance of his duties, in violation of Regulation 64(6) of the Police Regulations and Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1965.

¶32

(c) that, the petitioner left his place of duty one hour prior to the scheduled time of conclusion of duty, thereby remaining absent from his official responsibilities and in doing so, violated Regulations 64(2) and 64(6) of the Police Regulations as well as Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1965.

¶33

(iv) Pursuant thereof, petitioner was subjected to departmental inquiry and ultimately, on 28/05/2010 (Annexure P/1), finding the aforesaid charges proved against him, he was terminated from service by respondent No. 4, being the Inquiry Officer. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of termination, he filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2, being the appellate authority, but by impugned order dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/2), his appeal was also dismissed finding no merit which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

¶34

3. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since petitioner was serving on the lowest post of Constable, before passing the order of his termination which comes under the category of extreme

¶35

5

¶36

punishment, provision contained under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations ought to have been followed particularly sub-regulations (iii) and (iv) of Regulation 226, as such, the impugned order, by which extreme penalty of termination from service has been imposed upon the petitioner in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, is liable to be set aside and appropriate punishment be awarded to him in view of Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations.

¶37

4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would submit that petitioner, being a Police Constable, attended duty in plain clothes leaving behind his service rifle unattended which was used by Constable Jitendra Verma for committing suicide, therefore, the order dated 28/05/2010 passed by the disciplinary authority awarding punishment of termination of service to the petitioner is in accordance with law, as such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶39

6. Petitioner was found guilty by the disciplinary authority for violation of Regulation 64(2) and 64(6) of the Police Regulations, which provides as under :-

¶40

6

¶41

“ 64. General Condition of Service. - Every candidate for an appointment in the police should be made acquainted, prior to appointment, with the general conditions of police service, which are as follows :-

¶42

(1) XXX XXX

¶43

(2) He shall faithfully and honestly use his best abilities to fulfill all his duties as a police officer.

¶44

(3) to (5) XXX XXX

¶45

(6) He shall wear, when on duty, such dress and accoutrements as shall, from time to time, be prescribed for each rank of the service and shall be always neat and clean in his appearance. At no time shall any police officer appear partly in uniform and partly in mufti.

¶46

(7) to (12) XXX XXX”

¶47

7. The breach of aforementioned Regulations 64(2) and 64(6) is punishable under Regulation 214 of the Police Regulations, which states as under :-

¶48

“ 214. Punishment – Kinds of. - Without prejudice to the provisions of any law or such special orders for the time being in force, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member holding a post in a Subordinate Police Service :-

¶49

(I) Withholding of promotion;

¶50

(ii) Withholding of increments of pay including stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation allowance;

¶51

(iii) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further direction as to whether or not the member of the Subordinate Police Service will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance, as the case may be, during the period of such reduction and whether on the

¶52

7

¶53

expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay of stagnation allowance;

¶54

Note – The expression “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay” shall also include reduction of pay from the stage of pay drawn by a member of the Subordinate Police Service on account of grant of stagnation allowance if any.

¶55

(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government or to any fund maintained for the welfare of the Police by negligence or breach of orders;

¶56

(v) Removal from the service, which does not disqualify from future employment;

¶57

(vi) Dismissal from the service, which ordinarily disqualified for future employment;

¶58

(vii) Suspension is not punishment;

¶59

(viii) Compulsory retirement.”

¶60

8. Similarly, Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations prescribes the rules that should be observed for determining as to what penalty should be awarded for a particular offence, which states as under :-

¶61

“ 226. Punishments – Offences for which given. - The following rules should be observed in determining what penalty should be awarded for any particular offence :-

¶62

(i)(a) Dismissal is the last resource and should, ordinarily not be inflicted until all other means of corrections have failed.

¶63

(b) If dismissal is considered too severe a punishment for sub-Inspector he should be removed from the service (This does not amount to dismissal).

¶64

(ii) and (iii) XXX

¶65

8

¶66

(iv) With holding of increment either temporary or permanent (or grade reduction in the case of head Constables) is a suitable punishment for all cases of serious dereliction of duty. It may also be inflicted for culpable ignorance of police procedure, laziness or apathy in conducting the work of the police station, and the like. Fair warning should be given in every instance and opportunity for amendment afforded before the punishment is awarded.

¶67

(v) An increment which has fallen due may be withheld for a definite period for inefficiency or unsatisfactory service. In the case of a Constable, it shall not be withheld for more than one year in the first instance. If a subsequent offence justifies extension of this period, a departmental enquiry is necessary.

¶68

(vi) Fine is an appropriate punishment for repeated carelessness and disobedience of orders. Unpunctuality and the like. Fines should be moderate in amount; the loss of half a month’s pay is the utmost that should ever be inflicted, save in very exceptional circumstance. The fining of constables is prohibited.”

¶69

9. In the present case, if the charges levelled against the petitioner are examined in light of the aforesaid Police Regulations, it would appear that petitioner exhibited negligence by reporting for duty without wearing the prescribed uniform and by leaving the service rifle unattended at his house and further by leaving his place of duty one hour prior to the scheduled time of conclusion of duty, however, before passing the order dated 28/05/2010 and awarding the extreme punishment of termination from service to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority ought to have considered the provisions contained under sub-

¶70

9

¶71

regulation (i), (iv), (v) and (vi) of Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations. Similarly, the order dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/2) also appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner by the appellate authority by simply affirming the order of the disciplinary authority without paying heed to the aforesaid Police Regulations. Accordingly, the orders dated 28/05/2010 (Annexure P/1) as well 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside and with regard to the quantum of punishment, matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 4 for passing a fresh order in light of the provisions contained under Regulation 226 (i), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Police Regulations, keeping in mind that dismissal is the last resource, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶72

10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶73

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶74

Harneet

Bhan Singh Dohre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhan Singh Dohre 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

Ganesh Ram (Ganesh Rao) Shendey (Now Dead) through Spouse Smt. Gopikala Shendey Vs the State of M.P.

S.k.nagre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anoop Kumar Shukla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Raj Shekhar Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shantanu Behera Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Singh Rana (Died) - Through Legal Rps - Vs State Of Chhattisgarh