2025:CGHC:31665 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEETKAUR KAUR Date:

2025.07.14 Writ Petition (S) No. 6754 of 2016

11:18:56 +0530 Vinod Singh Died Through Lrs :-

1. Smt. Maya Baghel W/o Late Shri Vinod Singh Baghel, Aged about 30 years.

2. Ku. Versha D/o Late shri Vinod Singh Baghel, Aged about

15 years.

3. Abhishek S/o Late Vinod Singh Baghel, Aged about 12 years.

4. Vikash S/o Late Shri Vinod Singh Baghel, Aged about 10 years.

No. 2 to 4 are minor through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Maya Baghel.

All are R/o Subham Vihar, Raypura, Thana Devendra Nagar, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioners versus

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Arms Force-1, Police Head Quarter Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin

4949001.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Of Police Senani, 3rd Battalion Chhattisgarh Arms Force Ambleshwar Durg, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh.

5. Company Commander, 3rd Battalion Chhattisgarh Arms Force Ambleshwar Durg Inquirty Officer, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Goshwami and Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L.

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

09.07 .2025

1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 06/02/2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 in the appeal preferred by him whereby the order dated 23/05/2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 3 has been affirmed thereby, re-affirming the order dated 24/01/2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 4 terminating the original petitioner from service.

2. Petitioner was working as a Constable (GD) and on

23/08/2014 (Annexure P/4), he was charge-sheeted and the following two charges were levelled against him :-

आरोप

1 - रात्रि(cid:7) गणना में शराब सेवन कर उपस्थि(cid:21)(cid:22)त होना | अपशब्दों का प्रयोग करना | अभद्रता के सा(cid:22) शोर - शराबा कर अशोभनीय आचरण प्रदर्शिशत करना | म.प्र. / छ.ग. सिसत्रिवल सेवा (आचरण) त्रिनयम, 1965 के त्रिनयम -

23 (ख) एवं 3(3) के प्रतितकू ल कृ त्या करना |

2 - पूव. में भी शराब सेवन त्रिकए जाने पर 01 बड़ी सजा एवं 01 छोटी सजा, ड्यूटी के प्रतित घोर लापरवाही बरतने पर 01 बड़ी सजा, कत्तर्व्यय. से/ अवकाश से अनुपस्थि(cid:21)(cid:22)त रहने के कसूर में 06 छोटी सजाओं से दस्थि89त त्रिकया जाकर सेवा का अंतितम अवसर त्रिदए जाने के बावजूद भी आचरण में

सधु र न लाया जाकर सेवा के अनुपयक्तु पाया जाना|

3. The aforesaid charges were found proved against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer i.e. respondent No. 5 which was further accepted by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Disciplinary Authority and finding that on 06/08/2014, while he was on duty, he was in a state of intoxication and exhibited indiscipline which is a major misconduct and which is unbecoming of a Police Officer and moreover, he has already been inflicted with 7 minor punishments and 1 major punishment, despite that he has not improved which shows that he is a habitual offender, proceeded to pass his order of termination on 24/01/2015 (Annexure P-3).

4. Mr. P.K. Goshwami, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner was charged with being in an intoxicated condition during duty hours and exhibiting indecent behaviour which is unbecoming of a Police Officer, however, no medical test was conducted to find out whether he was in a state of intoxication and only on the basis of oral examination, it has been held that he was inebriated, which is totally unsustainable and bad in law. Further, the fact that 7 minor punishments and 1 major punishment have already been inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be a subject matter for the Department to proceed against the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

5. Mr. Shara