ORDER :

1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the charge-sheet (Annexure P/2) dated 25.02.2023 and the subsequent order (Annexure P/4) passed on 23.03.2023 whereby the respondents have appointed an Enquiry Officer. Challenge also is to the order (Annexure P/5) dated 04.05.2023 passed by the respondents wherein the representation which the petitioner had made against the charge-sheet, has not been accepted and the representation has been rejected.

2. Challenge primarily to the charge-sheet is on the ground that since the petitioner stands retired from service w.e.f 30.06.2021, the charge-sheet subsequent to his retirement could not have been issued by the respondents. Challenge also is on the ground that the said charge-sheet has not been issued in accordance with law.

3. Challenge further made by Learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that the plain reading of the article of charges itself would establish that the petitioner is not one who would be responsible for the alleged Merg enquiry that is said to have been conducted in a faulty manner and the concerned Erring Officer has already been proceeded with on the disciplinary front and he has also been inflicted with a punishment. Therefore now the responsibility further cannot be shifted upon the petitioner.

4. The State Counsel opposing the petition on the other hand referred to (Annexure P/6) which is an order passed in the name of Governor of the State. The said order is dated 14.09.2022 and the said order clearly reflects that there is a sanction provided by the Hon’ble Governor for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a matter which has been traveled from the State Human Rights Commission and that the allegations against the petitioner was that during the period when he was the Station House Officer of Police Station Pusour Dist. Raigarh, there was an intimation that was received at the Police Station of which the Merg intimation was recorded as 33/2020 in-respect-of the deceased Raivati Chouhan. There was an allegation of deliberate delayed FIR that was lodged and for which there was a recommendation for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the other subordinate officers at the said Police Station.

6. The contention of the counsel for petitioner all along was that except for the fact that he was a Station House Officer, the Merg intimation was recorded by a different person and the Merg enquiry was conducted by another person and that there was no role played by the petitioner in the said Merg enquiry. He further submits that as far as trial is initiated on the said Merg enquiry, the same has resulted in the condition of the accused. Therefore prime facie, there is no lapse as stated against the petitioner and he is now being unnecessarily prosecuted after his retirement.

7. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the fact that the petitioner was not responsible for the said lapses, would stand established from the fact that the respondent-authorities had already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the head constable who had conducted a Merg enquiry. An order of punishment was also imposed on the said head constable namely Keshav Prasad Devta vide order dated 30.12.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur. Since the said proceedings stand concluded there itself, there could not have been again revival of the disciplinary proceedings at this juncture by further prosecuting the petitioner and issuance of the charge-sheet that too much after his retirement.

8. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a matter of enquiry whether the petitioner did play any role or not, further the petitioner has already filed his reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter since the reply not being found satisfactory, the disciplinary authorities have decided to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.

9. It is the contention of the State Counsel