Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Chandrashekhar Ratnakar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 9323 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pratibha Sahu
For the Respondents: Hrishikesh Sharma

In departmental proceedings, penalties must be based on cogent, relevant evidence; where a charge of misconduct is based on a plausible, innocent explanation backed by circumstances, and the invoked statutory rules are inapplicable, the punitive order is legally unsustainable due to a lack of nexus.

Headnote:(A) C.G. Prison Rules, 1968 - Rule 252

(B) and Rule 570 - C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 - Rule 3(1) - Departmental Enquiry - Misconduct - Penalty of withholding annual increment - Petitioner found possessing currency at jail gate - Explanation that money was left inadvertently found plausible - Findings of Enquiry Officer and Appellate Authority suffering from non-consideration of material aspect - Penal provisions found inapplicable - Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Jail Guard, was placed under suspension and subsequently penalized with the withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect after a sum of Rs. 800/- was discovered in his pocket during routine entry screening at the prison. The petitioner’s defense that the money was inadvertently left in his pocket from previous personal shopping was rejected by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, leading to this petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the possession of money in an easily detectable location contradicted any mala fide intent or attempt at concealment. It further held that the disciplinary authority failed to establish the applicability or violation of the invoked Rules and that the punishment was based on conjecture rather than cogent evidence.

Issues: Whether the possession of personal cash by an official during entry at a sensitive premises constitutes professional misconduct justifying a major penalty, and whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with legal standards of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: An enquiry must be conducted with strict adherence to statutory provisions. Where the explanation of a delinquent is plausible and the charged evidence lacks a nexus to the alleged misconduct, an order imposing a penalty is unsustainable. Appellate intervention is permitted when there is manifest injustice or patent illegality in departmental findings.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and procedural history in disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' contentions regarding the sustainability of the disciplinary penalty. (Para 3 , 4)
3. requirements for evidence, proportionality, and fairness in disciplinary enquiries. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. courts' assessment of bona fide explanations and applicability of statutory rules. (Para 10)
5. final outcome and reversal of administrative disciplinary orders. (Para 11)

1 - Chandrashekhar Ratnakar S/o Shri Ramnihor Ratnakar Aged About

36 Years R/o Village- Gotoura, Tahsil- Masturi, District : Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of

Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post-

Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director General (Jail) Jail And Corrective Services, Chhattisgarh,

Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

3 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),

Chhattisgarh.

4 - Enquiry Officer / Jail Superintendent District Jail, District :

Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

CAV Order

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner's case from the possession of the concerned authorities.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 14.9.2017 (Annexure P/5) and 8.2.2018 (Annexure P/7) and direct the respondent authorities to grant him all the consequential benefits.

10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted along with cost of the petition.”

2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was working as Chief Guard (Gatekeeper) at Central Jail, Jagdalpur. On 13.09.2016, certain alleged prohibited items, namely one currency note of Rs. 500 denomination and three currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination each, were seized from his possession, and by order dated 13.09.2016, issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter, on 01.10.2016, the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur, issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner containing three charges and directed him to submit his reply within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the said charge-sheet on 17.10.2016 explaining the charges levelled against him. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the authorities conducted a departmental enquiry, and upon its conclusion, the Enquiry Officer/Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Dantewada, submitted an enquiry report dated 13.07.2017 wherein, except Charge No. 2, Charges No. 1 and 3 were held to be proved. A copy of the enquiry report was thereafter supplied to the petitioner with a direction to submit his representation, which he accordingly submitted on 22.08.2017, however, the disciplinary authority found the same unsatisfactory and, upon consideration of the enquiry report, the petitioner’s representation, and the evidence on record, passed order dated 14.09.2017 imposing the penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 08.10.2017 before the Director General (Jail), Jail and Correctional Services, Raipur. The Director General (Jail), Jail and Correctional Services, Raipur, vide order dated 08.02.2018, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JChandrashekhar Ratnakar – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 9323 of 2023

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Chandrashekhar Ratnakar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 9323 of 2023