The court ruled that disciplinary authorities must consider proportionality in punishment, especially for minor offenses, as per applicable regulations.

Judgment :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State /respondents.

2. The appellant has filed this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 4594 of 2018 (Ramsagar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the petitioner was posted at O/o Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, Bilaspur on the post of Constable. The article of charges was issued by the disciplinary authority on 31.08.2017 making allegations against the petitioner to the effect that on 24.07.2017, the petitioner refused to perform his duties and he flouted the orders issued by the superior authorities which reflects indiscipline and arbitrariness in his behavior. It was also submitted that the act of the petitioner was contrary to Sub-Rule (2)(4)(5) of the Police Regulation No. 64 and Sections 16 (छ)-1 and 17(ड.)(च) of the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act of 1968’). The petitioner was provided with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses along with the article of charges. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and a full- fledged departmental inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter, punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.01.2018. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPS No. 4594 of 2018 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 31.01.2025. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that while the appellant was posted at Samari Camp, Ambikapur, he was alleged to commit misconduct and initiated a disciplinary proceeding. After completion of proceeding, the appellant was imposed a minor punishment, later on, the Revisional Authority suo moto taking the matter in revision, issued a show cause notice against which, the appellant submitted his detailed representation, but the respondents had enhanced the punishment and dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant submitted appeal, but the same has been rejected against which the appellant submitted a writ petition being WPS No. 2729 of 2002, which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2013 and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated. But, when the respondents had not complied the order passed by this Court, the appellant preferred a contempt petition and upon notices in contempt petition, the respondents have passed the orders dated 08.07.2013 and 12.07.2023, whereby the appellant has been reinstated. Thereafter the appellant had been posted/deputed in naxalite area without considering his age and physical condition. The appellant has made request for assigning the duty in soft area as so many similarly placed persons are working in the soft area but the same has not been considered by the authorities and meanwhile, the authority has served a charge-sheet to the appellant alleging that he has disobeyed the order of his superior authority and refused to perform very important camp security duty on 24.07.2017. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him, therefore, the enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed on 09.10.2017. The enquiry officer without properly appreciating the documen