When a disciplinary authority disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings that favor the employee, it must record reasons for such disagreement and provide the employee an opportunity to be heard before recording a final finding of guilt and imposing punishment.

Order On Board

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.03.02 19:18:45 +0530

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2019 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. the Director General of Police, Police Headquarter Raipur whereby the mercy appeal preferred by him against the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range dismissing the original Appeal preferred by the petitioner, which, in turn, was preferred against the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg dated 19.12.2002 whereby major punishment of Compulsory Retirement was imposed upon the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, this Court in WP No.4202/2005 had quashed the impugned order dated 29.4.2003 and the order passed by the Director General of Police deciding the mercy appeal was also quashed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for hearing and disposal. Thereafter, the Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range vide order dated 30.12.2017 and the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2019. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer without assigning any reason, which is in violation of Rule 15 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966’) and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of A.K. Shrivastava Vs. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya & Others {2017 SCC OnLine Chh 969}.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned orders.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Admittedly, on 30.10.2002, the Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted report that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found proved, however, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Durg, vide order dated 19.12.2002 disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

7. It is not in dispute that for carrying-out the said departmental enquiry, the procedure envisaged in the Rules of 1966 are applicable in which Rule 15(2) provides for the procedure and further action to be taken if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1966 states as follows:

“Rule 15(2) - Further action if Disciplinary Authority if disagrees with the findings of Enquiry Authority.

(2) The Disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for the such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.”

8. A focused glance of the aforesaid Rule would show that in the event the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he has to record its separate reasons for such