Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Kaushik Behra – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 1488 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Roop Ram Naik
For the Respondents: Arpit Agrawal

In disciplinary matters, the High Court’s scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision-making process. Interference is warranted only when findings are perverse, statutory procedures or natural justice are violated, or the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the Court.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review - High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority - Reappreciation of evidence or interference with quantum of punishment is impermissible unless findings are perverse or punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. (Paras 27, 32, 33, 34, 40)

(B) Service Law - Misconduct - Unauthorized absence - Government servant in a disciplined force remaining absent without leave for a prolonged period, especially in sensitive areas, renders them liable to major penalty - Proof of 'willful' absence is essential - Departmental enquiry held in accordance with principles of natural justice and statutory rules cannot be invalidated on minor technicalities or sympathetic considerations. (Paras 13, 28, 29, 31, 36, 41)

Facts of the case:
A member of a uniformed force was subjected to a departmental inquiry and subsequently removed from service after remaining unauthorizedly absent for 213 consecutive days. The delinquent challenged the order of removal and subsequent appellate orders, alleging violation of natural justice, lack of willful intent, and disproportionate punishment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiry was conducted in strict compliance with statutory rules and the principles of natural justice, providing the delinquent adequate opportunity to defend himself. The authorities considered the past service record, which showed repeated instances of unauthorized absence, and concluded the punishment was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

Issues: Whether the High Court can interfere with the punishment imposed in a departmental inquiry through reappreciation of evidence, and whether the punishment of removal was disproportionate and violative of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review is restricted to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Given that there was material evidence supporting the finding of habitual misconduct, the disciplinary authority acted within its powers, and the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of factual background and disciplinary procedural history. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. petitioner's contentions regarding natural justice and disproportionate sentencing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. state's justification for disciplinary action based on habitual misconduct. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. review of the disciplinary authority’s findings and adherence to procedure. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. scope of judicial review under article 226 in disciplinary matters. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. final determination on the validity of removal from service. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

AFR

Order Reserved on : 18.02.2026

Order Delivered on : 02.04.2026

CAV Order

1. Heard Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Arpit Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The petitioner, by filing the present writ petition, has assailed the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the mercy petition/departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 4 as well as the final order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 5 have been affirmed, seeking quashment of the said orders and a consequential direction for reinstatement on the post of Constable with seniority, full back wages, salary and all consequential benefits, including counting of the period from 13.06.2018 to 12.01.2019 for all service purposes.

3. The petitioner has sought for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ/order by setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the mercy petition /departmental appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and confirmed the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-2) and final order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 5 (Annex. P-3).

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order by directing the respondent authorities to reinstatement the petitioner in his service (post of Constable) with seniority, salary, full back wages and all consequential benefits with effect from date of removal from service i.e. 04.10.2019 and also count/treat the working period from 13.06.2018 to 12.01.2019.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in the favour of the petitioner.”

4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable and, after completing his basic PTS and CIT training in the 5th Battalion, Jagdalpur, was posted at Police Camp Jiramgaon, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar, a naxalite-affected area. He discharged his duties sincerely and honestly. However, he remained absent from duty from 13.06.2018 to 12.01.2019 due to the death of his uncle (who had adopted him), performance of last rites, his own ill health, his wife’s pregnancy and other family difficulties, and he could not intimate the superior authorities during that period.

5. A charge-sheet dated 07.02.2019 was issued alleging unauthorized absence for about 213 days in violation of Rule 64(2) (4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and Rule 7 of the Civil Services Conduct Rules, along with an allegation that he was a habitual absentee and unfit for service. A departmental enquiry was instituted and an enquiry officer was appointed. According to the petitioner, no proper show cause notice was served, nor was he afforded an effective opportunity to defend himself or cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

6. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 21.05.2019 holding the charges proved. Thereafter, by order dated 04.10.2019, responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JKaushik Behra – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 1488 of 2023

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Kaushik Behra – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 1488 of 2023