Order on Board

13.12.2024

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P/1).

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire departmental enquiry.

10.3. That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2) Facts of the present case are as under:-

a. The petitioner was working on the post of Constable cum Driver in the office of respondent No. 3 at the relevant time.

b. On 01.02.2021, while driving a vehicle bearing registration No.

CG/03/3764 (Tata Sumo), the petitioner lost control of the vehicle and dashed another vehicle bearing registration No. CG/04/MC/9915, which was being driven by Khilawan Sahu.

c. As a result of the accident, RI Kuldeep Singh, Head Constable Manmohan Singh, and Constables Tikeshwar Sen, Sandeep Minz, and Anurag Barwe sustained injuries and RI Kuldeep Singh and Head Constable Manmohan Singh succumbed to their injuries.

d. An FIR was registered on 01.02.2021. However, during the course of the investigation and subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, it was found that the aforesaid accident took place due to the negligence of Khilawan Sahu. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against him.

e. The department issued article of charges against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charges. Enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed by the disciplinary Authority. The enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted before the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police (Railways), (for short, SP(R), Raipur.

f. Vide order dated 10.07.2024, SP(R), Raipur/respondent No.3 considered the enquiry report and came to the conclusion that the documents submitted during the course of departmental enquiry were not exhibited.

g. The documents submitted during the course of departmental enquiry and procedures adopted by the enquiry officer were not found proper.

h. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Raipur to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.

i. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 08.11.2024 changed the enquiry officer and one Smt. Varsha Mishra, Assistant Inspector General of Police was appointed as enquiry officer and she was granted 15 days to complete the departmental enquiry and submit a report.

j. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P/1).

3) Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier an enquiry was concluded and the report was submitted, which was found faulty by respondent No.3 vide order dated 10.07.2024 and an order was issued to submit a fresh report. She would further submit that pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2024, the enquiry was conducted but respondent No.3 vide order dated 08.11.2024 changed the enquiry officer and again directed the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry and submit a report within a period of 15 days.

She would contend that as pursuant to the order date 10.07.2024 enquiry was already conducted, therefore there was no occasion for respondent No.3 to issue a fresh order for de novo enquiry. In support thereof, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter K.M. Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.3792 of 2011) and other connected matters.

4) She would lastly submit that the order issued by respondent No.3 is contrary to the provisions of Rule 15 (1) of the CG Civil Services Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

5) On the other hand, Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the enquiry report was submitted before respondent No.3, which was found faulty. He would further submit that the documents