IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings focuses on the fairness of the process rather than the correctness of the outcome, ensuring compliance with natural justice.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been filed seeking following relief:

(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3/IGP, Surguja (CG).

(iii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 3/IGP, Surguja (CG).

(iv) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned appellate order dated 23.12.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No. 2/DGP, PHQ, Raipur (CG).

(v) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the amount to the petitioner which has been dedcuted pursuant to the impugned punishment order dated 28.05.2019 passed by respondent No. 3/IGP, Surguja (CG).

(vi) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No. 2/DGP, PHQ, Raipur to decide the pending review applications of the petitioner dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure P/7) and 10.08.2021 (Annexure P/8).

(vii) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2014, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in Police Station- City Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, on some complaint being made against him, respondent No. 5/S.P. Surguja imposed minor punishment on the petitioner i.e. withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect vide Annexure P-1 dated 02.08.2016. The respondent No. 3/Inspector General of Police (IGP), Surguja Range, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) vide its order dated 21.11.2016 Annexure P-2, directed the respondent No. 5/S. P. Surguja to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner disagreeing with the minor punishment imposed upon the petitioner. He submits that thereafter the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and on completion of the departmental enquiry the petitioner was inflicted with a major penalty to place the petitioner in minimum pay scale for one year on the post of ASI. Challenging the same, a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent No. 2/Director General of Police who after hearing the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dated 23.12.2019 Annexure P-6. Against which a review application was filed which also stood dismissed. Challenging all these orders by which the punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially vide Annexure P-1, only minor punishment of withholding an increment without cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner which was revised by Inspector General of Police/respondent No. 3 vide order dated 21.11.2016. He submits that according to provision contained in Section 270 of CG Police Regulations 1861, such order cannot be passed by the Inspector General without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the entire proceedings carried out on the basis of Annexure P-2 liable to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. He submits that without quashing the earlier order of minor penalty, the revisional order cannot be passed. Apart from this, he submits that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence to its proper perspective, therefore, otherwise the impugned punishment order, appellate order and review order are also liable to be set aside.

3. On the o