2025:CGHC:25555-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 372 of 2025 Chhatrapal Sahu S/o Shri Khilawan Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Radheshyam Rice Mill, Police Station Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Afffairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director General of Police Police Headquarter, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Dy. Inspector General of Police Rajnandgaon, District :

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Superintendent of Police Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

...Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:

2025.06.19 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

19 .06.2025

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 375 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 285 of 2012 (Chhatrapal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who was a constable is out of service since year 2010 because by an order dated 30.01.2010 he was removed from service by respondent No. 4, the Disciplinary Authority, the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon. He further submits that against the appellant, disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuance of charge-sheet dated 12.05.2009 containing the following 02 imputations:

“I. On 06.02.2009 unauthorizedly, the appellant went to village Khoratola locked the applicant in a room abused and intimidated applicant that he would be sent to jail for keeping wood and for not taking action illegally demanded Rs. 5,000 (Five thousand) bribe thus demonstrated corrupt conduct.

II. By remaining absent in stant-2 on 06.02.2009 at Police Station Gaindatola demonstrated negligence to duty.”

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Inquiry OfÏcer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and enquiry report was prepared and sent to the Disciplinary Authority after the departmental enquiry on 30.12.2009. On perusal of the enquiry report, it would be evident that the enquiry has been conducted with the sole motive to hold the appellant guilty of charges and establish the charges levelled against the appellant. The Inquiry OfÏcer performed the role of prosecutor as well since though Presenting OfÏcer was appointed, the Inquiry OfÏcer cross examined the appellant as well as the witness and thereby vitiated the enquiry. In the case of Anita Thakur vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others, reported in 2019 LAB.I.C. (NOC) 106 (CHH), and paragraphs 12 and 13 were referred. He also contended that even the superior ofÏcer, while acting as Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority, has not assigned any reason for agreeing or confirming the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He submits that the Enquiry OfÏcer and the Superior OfÏcer while acting as Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority, performs a quasi judicial function. He would submit it is clear from the aforesaid view taken in many cases that non-appointing a Presenting OfÏcer by itself wo