Allowed

Subhash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jan 2025WPS/362/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Head Constable dismissed without departmental inquiry after arrest on ammunition-theft charges, later acquitted. Relying on Regulation 241 and a coordinate-bench decision, the High Court set aside the dismissal and appellate orders and directed reinstatement with arrears per Rule 54 FR.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 12.06.2020 and appellate rejection dated 06.12.2021 set aside; petitioner reinstated forthwith with liberty to claim arrears per Rule 54 FR, to be decided within 60 days.

Subhash Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:4300

¶3

RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed byRAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.05 20:21:57 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 362 of 2022

¶7

1 - Subhash Singh S/o Mahesh Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Chhote Attarmuda, T.V. Tower Road, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Superindent Of Police Sukma Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate

¶17

For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Singh, Government Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

23/01/2025

¶21

Heard Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶22

¶23

well as Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s.

¶24

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s) :

¶25

“10 (A) To call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner.

¶26

10 (B) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure P/2).

¶27

10 (C) To direct reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential benefits.

¶28

10 (D) Cost of the petition may be awarded.”

¶29

Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in 8th Battalion CG Armed Force on 14.12.2001. On 19.03.2009, the petitioner was absorbed in the Arms Department. The petitioner was working to the best of his efficiency based on which he was promoted as Head Constable on 30.10.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request for transfer to his native place as his wife was suffering from cancer and the same was considered and transfer order was passed on 13.02.2020, by which he was transferred to 11th Battalion Janjgir-Champa (ANNEXURE -P/5). After the issuance of transfer order due to outbreak of Pandemic, everything became stand still and the petitioner could not be relieved until 01.06.2020. (ANNEXURE-P/6). On 04.06.2020, the police arrested one Manoj Sharma and Harishankar Gedam with some ammunitions and

¶30

¶31

after interrogation name of some other persons also came from home the name of Sub Inspector Anand Jatav was revealed. The petitioner was also summoned and he informed the authorities that few month back demand was made by Anand Jatav for ammunition and the same was provided to him as per the protocol. The petitioner was suddenly arrested on 08.06.2020 alongwith Anand Jatav based on FIR No. 51/20 registered at City Kotwali Sukma under section 381 of IPC and section 8(3) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005. After arrest the petitioner was suspended as per the service law. On 12.06.2020, the IG Bastar Range issued the order of dismissal of service against petitioner and Anand Jatav. (Annexure P/1). Surprisingly, no departmental inquiry was conducted and the order was passed within four days of arrest of the petitioner and the reason mentioned was that the petitioner being behind bars, it is not possible to conduct the departmental inquiry and exercising powers under Article 311(2)-B, the decision of dismissal of service was taken. The Trial Court after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not found to be involved in the said crime and was acquitted from all the charges. (ANNEXURE-P/7). The petitioner remained in jail from 08th June 2020 t0 13th April 2021 and was released during Pandemic between Sep 20 to Jan 21. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before DGP challenging the order passed by the IG on 29.10.2021, the DGP upheld the order passed by the IG and

¶32

¶33

passed the order on 06.12.2021, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identical petition has been decided and he is on same footing. His appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority has been dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2021. In respect to the same, he has filed the documents with covering memo. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in 8^th Battalion CG Armed Force on 14.12.2001 and on 19.03.2009, the petitioner was absorbed in the said Department. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable.

¶35

The prayer of the petitioner has not been opposed by the learned State counsel.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid aspect when the counsel for respondent/State is directed to see whether the case is identical to the other petition, it has been submitted by Mr. Ajeet Singh, GA that it is identical matter.

¶37

On the basis of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.83/2016 , while dealing with a similar issue in paras 8, 9, 18 & 20 held as under:-

¶38

¶39

“8. In order to consider the plea as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 241 of the said Regulations which states as under: -

¶40

Cases of acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated: He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however the acquittal, whether in the court of original jurisdiction or of appeal was based on technical grounds. Or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General."

¶41

A careful perusal of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations would show that it is an exception to the rule applicable to the police force providing that once an employee has been acquitted by the criminal court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service and he may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constituted the sole ground of punishment. However, Regulation 241 also carves out a caveat that if the order of acquittal is based on technical grounds or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector General.

¶42

18.In view of the finding recorded herein-above, charges in criminal trial and departmental proceeding are substantially one and same. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhagat, learned State counsel, that charges framed against the petitioner i.e. based on departmental proceeding and criminal trial are different, is hereby rejected.

¶43

20.Accordingly, the order dated 13-4-2015 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 9-12-2015 passed

¶44

¶45

by the appellate authority, both, are set aside and consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 7- 4-1995 terminating the services of the petitioner, is also hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential service benefits except back-wages. However, the issue of back-wages will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to make submission that he is entitled for full back-wages.”

¶46

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the provision of Police Regulation 241 and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra) , in the opinion of this Court, respondent authorities committed an error of law in rejecting the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner after acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, the Termination order dated 12.06.2020 and dismissal of appeal of petitioner dated 06.12.2021 are hereby set aside.

¶47

The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application claiming therein arrears of salary in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules before the competent authority and the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation so made within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

The writ petition is allowed to the extent extracted herein-above. No order as to cost(s).

¶49

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

Ravi Mandavi

Subhash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahim Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Prasad Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Prasad Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kaushalya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamta Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalaram Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh