Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Shivkumar Saitode – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 4792 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankit Singh
For the Respondents: Ashutosh Shukla

Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when a delinquent employee is denied the right to cross-examine witnesses or denied access to relevant documents. A finding of guilt must base itself on legally admissible evidence, and procedural fairness is a mandatory requirement under Articles 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 311(2) - Service Law - Principles of natural justice - Dismissal from service - Right of cross-examination - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner dismissed from service without being afforded adequate opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses and without meaningful compliance with procedural safeguards - Holding an enquiry based on non-examination of material witnesses and refusal to furnish relevant documents amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and violates fair procedure. (Paras 27, 28, 34 and 35)

(B) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Use of preliminary enquiry findings - Evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used in a regular departmental inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and has no right to cross-examine the witnesses at that stage - Reliance on such evidence without fresh examination in the regular enquiry vitiates proceedings. (Para 30)

(C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Dismissal - Where misconduct alleged is based on private matrimonial disputes and not official duties, and evidence is non-existent or findings are based on procedural illegality, the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate and arbitrary. (Paras 33 and 35)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of the police force, challenged his dismissal from service. Allegations against him were grounded in a private matrimonial complaint leading to a departmental enquiry where he was held guilty of misconduct. The petitioner contended that the enquiry was vitiated by the denial of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged conduct arising from a private family dispute.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the enquiry officer failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The findings were based on statements that were never properly tested through cross-examination, and the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's overall service record or the nature of the dispute, which did not involve official duties.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses vitiates the departmental enquiry and whether the dismissal was disproportionate in light of the nature of the misconduct and procedural lapses.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature; non-supply of relevant material and denial of the substantive right to cross-examine witnesses renders an enquiry report unsustainable. Findings must be based on legally admissible evidence, and where an enquiry is one-sided and procedural safeguards are ignored, the resulting punishment of dismissal is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice.

Result: Petition allowed. Impugned orders quashed; reinstatement with 50% back wages ordered.

Table of Content
1. factual history of disciplinary action and service termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions on natural justice and proportionality in discipline. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. standards of police conduct and regulatory requirements. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. procedural fairness and right to cross-examination. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. remedial orders including reinstatement and back wages. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the order/communication (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been arbitrarily removed from his posting without adherence to the due process of law. The petitioner has sought for following reliefs:-

“10.1 And any other relief, which the court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded the petitioner including the cost of the petition.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to revive the petitioner back to his service as Police Constable in the said place of service wherein he already was posted.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court my kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to disburse the salary which is pending since 17 months and any applicable interest thereupon.

"10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ(s)/direction(s)/ order(s) to set-aside/quash the order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P/7) passed by Respondent No. 02/DGP.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable and has rendered more than eight years of unblemished service in the department. He was posted as Police Constable No. 987 at Chauki-Baya, Rajdevri Police Station, Balodabazar (C.G.). It is the case of the petitioner that ever since his appointment, he discharged his duties diligently and sincerely under the guidance of his superior officers and had never been subjected to any punishment on account of any misconduct or irregularity during his service tenure.

4. The petitioner was married to one Komal on 29.04.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, both resided together for about two years; however, due to differences of opinion, they started living separately. Subsequently, by mutual consent, their marriage was dissolved by a decree dated 13.10.2022 under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 13.07.2018 and 16.08.2018, his wife submitted written complaints before the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar, alleging that the petitioner used to consume alcohol, abuse and mistreat her, and further alleged that on the eve of Diwali he had outraged the modesty of his minor daughter. On the basis of the said complaints, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by order dated 11.02.2019. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, by order dated 29.12.2021, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges.

6. According to the petitioner, the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry were arrived at without affording him a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing. It is contended that he was neither granted an effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses nor permitted to properly defend himself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, by an undated order passed by the Superintendent of Police (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was removed from service on the allegation of misconduct under the relevant provisions of the Police Regulations.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on 02.03.2022 before the competent appellate authority under the provisions of the Police Regulations and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JShivkumar Saitode – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 4792 of 2023

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Shivkumar Saitode – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 4792 of 2023