Chetan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15648

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4244 of 2023

¶6

Digitally 1 - Chetan Dubey S/o Late Narayan Prasad Dubey Aged About 51 VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR Years At Sub-Inspector Police, Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Harishchandra Mishra S/o Late Gokul Prasad Mishra Aged About 61 Years At Sub-Inspector Police, Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department, AtMantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Director General Of Police At- Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Deputy Director General Of Police At- Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L.

¶16

2

¶17

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

06.04.2026

¶20

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the arbitrary and illegal order dated 02.06.2023 passed by respondent No. 02, whereby, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the petitioners have been delisted from the promotion list finalized in the year 2018. It is submitted that prior to the said promotion, a gradation list was duly published in 2016 and a promotion list thereafter, inviting objections at each stage, however, no objections were received and both lists attained finality. Consequently, after due consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioners were promoted from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector in 2018 and have since been discharging their duties on the promoted post. After an unexplained delay of more than four and a half years, the impugned order has been passed, removing the petitioners from the promotion list without notice or hearing, in gross violation of principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the action arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law.

¶21

Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order being arbitrary and unfair and having been passed

¶23

3

¶24

behind the back of the petitioners without affording them an opportunity of being heard.

¶25

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as after issuance of the gradation list in the year 2016 and its subsequent revision in 2018, due opportunities were afforded to all interested parties to raise objections, however, since no objections were received within the prescribed period, the lists attained finality and could not have been reopened after an inordinate delay of more than four and a half years. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted in contravention of their own rules and regulations, which clearly stipulate that in absence of objections, the gradation list shall attain finality, and therefore, the impugned action of reviewing and altering the same at this belated stage is impermissible in law. It is also contended that before passing such a drastic and prejudicial order affecting the vested rights of the petitioners, no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to them, thereby rendering the action violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already served on the promoted post of Sub-Inspector for more than four and a half years and any attempt to remove them from the promotion list or

¶27

4

¶28

to demote them would cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss, especially when the petitioners are not at fault. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order clearly reflects an attempt on the part of the respondents to unjustly demote the petitioners, despite the fact that even further promotional processes have been initiated, thereby making the impugned action wholly arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

¶29

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners were duly granted promotions from time to time, culminating in their promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 2018; however, the said promotion was based on an erroneous gradation list. It is further submitted that the gradation list of Assistant SubInspectors issued in 2018 was challenged by one Harish Chandra Jadhaw before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 8473/2022, wherein directions were issued to consider his representation. In compliance of the said order, the respondents examined the records and found that the seniority of the petitioners had been incorrectly determined on the basis of the date of promotion instead of the date of joining on the post of Assistant SubInspector, and accordingly, the gradation list was revised by issuing amended lists dated 17.04.2023 and 16.05.2023. It is submitted that consequent to such correction, the promotion granted to the petitioners in 2018 became unsustainable, and therefore, a show cause notice dated 02.06.2023 was issued to them granting an opportunity to submit their reply; however, the

¶30

5

¶31

petitioners failed to respond to the same. It is thus contended that there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as due opportunity was provided, and the respondents have merely exercised their lawful authority to rectify an apparent error. Learned State counsel further submits that it is within the prerogative of the employer to correct mistakes in the gradation list, and since the impugned action has been taken in compliance with the order of this Hon’ble Court and in accordance with law, the present petition is premature, misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

From perusal of the memo dated 02.06.2023, it appears that the said communication is in the nature of a notice whereby the petitioners have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit their reply and to appear before the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance. However, instead of submitting their reply before the competent authority and participating in the proceedings, the petitioners have directly approached this Court seeking interference at this stage.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, particularly when only a notice has been issued and no final adverse order deleting the names of the petitioners from the promotion list has yet been

¶35

6

¶36

passed, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition at this stage is premature and not liable to be entertained.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit their reply to the aforesaid notice dated 02.06.2023 before the competent authority within a reasonable period. On such reply being submitted, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶38

sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Vishakha

Chetan Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Dubey 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampukar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Brijesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajkumari Baiga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tapan Biswas Vs State of C.G.

Tapan Vishwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh