The punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding should not shock the conscience of the court and should be proportionate to the proven charge.

ORDER :

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.

1. Since both the above appeals arise out of same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Govind Sahu in WA No. 106/2022, Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for appellant Ravindra Singh Goutam in WA No. 170/2022 and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State.

3. The present intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13-10-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.267/2012 (Ravindra Singh Goutam and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

4. Facts of the case as projected in the writ petition are that the appellants Ravindra Singh and Govind Kumar Sahu were appointed in police department as Constable in the years 2009. It is alleged that on 11. 04.2010 at 10.00 P.M., the appellants booked two rooms for stay with two girls in the Mayank Hotel, Raipur and on information received by the Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazar that two persons are staying at Mayank Hotel by presenting themselves as Crime Branch Officers with two girls in suspicious condition, therefore a raid was conducted in the Mayank Hotel and appellants were found with said two girls, therefore on the basis of their suspicious stay in the hotel with the two girls, the appellants were arrested under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. and the two girls were arrested under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C. thereafter they were granted bail. Preliminary inquiry was conducted report of which is Annexure P-3 dated 7-5-2010 and the appellants were suspended. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellants and charge sheet was served upon the appellants, which they replied denying the charge leveled against them. After taking evidence and examining witnesses, the Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report Annexure P-5, held the charge leveled against the appellants to be proved. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4/Disciplinary Authority provided opportunity of hearing to the appellants and on the basis of the inquiry report, dismissed the appellants from service vide order dated 13-1-2011 (Annexure P/6). Against said dismissal from service, the appeal and mercy appeal preferred by them were also dismissed. Subsequently, they preferred writ petition No. 267/2012, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13-10-2020, which is under challenge in these appeals.

5. Mr. C.K. Kesharwani and Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for their respective appellants submit that the allegation leveled against the appellants are baseless. It is submitted that on 11-4-2010 two girls came from Korba to Raipur. One of the girl tried to contact her sister, who resides at Raipur, through mobile phone, but she could not contact her, then since there was no other relative of them at Raipur, one of the girl contacted appellant Ravindra Singh, who was her Munh Bola Bhai for their stay at Raipur, therefore, both the appellants just to help the girls, booked two rooms at Hotel Mayank. On information received by police, when the police raided their room, it was open and there was no suspicious activities in the room. It is further submitted that the Manager of the Hotel Bajranglal Sharma has stated in his statement that the appellants booked the rooms by showing their identity card and driving licence. He has also stated that Waiter Vishal Singh and Jivan Tandi did not complain about character of appellants. It is further submitted that during departmental inquiry, statement of mother and sister of one of the girl were also recorded, but they have not stated anything against appellants, on the contrary, they have said that they are well known to appellants. But the Inquiry Officer ignoring all these material evidence, has held the appellants guilty of misconduct, and on the basis of s