AFR

Order On Board

29.4.2026

1) In this petition, petitioner has challenged the orders passed by disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority whereby services of petitioner have been terminated.

2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable in respondent department vide order dated 3.11.2010 and he was posted as Constable at Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband at the relevant time. Services of petitioner were transferred to Police Station Devbhog vide order dated 10.7.2017 and he was relieved on the same date. However, petitioner did not join service at the transferred place. On 29.9.2018, show-cause notice and article of charges were issued against the petitioner and the same were also served upon him through special messenger on 27.10.2018 for his presence before Inquiry Officer/ SDO(P), Mainpur on 2.11.2018 but petitioner did not turn up. Inquiry Officer served notices upon the petitioner on 2.11.2018, 9.11.2018, 13.11.2018, 25.11.2018 and 5.1.2019 but petitioner did not participate in the proceeding, therefore he was proceeded ex-parte. Following allegations were made against the petitioner:-

(i) अपचारी आरक्षक क्रमांक 137 नरेश नेताम द्वारा दिनांक 10.07.2017 को नवीन पदस्थापना पर थाना ( मैनपुर से थाना देवमोग के लिए रवाना करनेके उपरांत समयावधि में आमद न लेकर बिना अनुमति व सूचना के आरोप पत्र जारी दिनांक तक अनाधिकृत रूप सेगैरहाजिर रहकर कर्तव्य के प्रति लापरवाही, स्वेच्छाचारिता एवं अनुशासनहीनता प्रदर्शित कर पुलिस रेग्युलेशन के पैरा 64 (5) सेवा के सामान्य शर्तों का उल्लंघन करना।

(ii) अपचारी आरक्षक क्रमांक 137 नरेश नेताम के द्वारा कर्तव्य प र उपस्थित होनेके लिए नोटिस जारी कर तामील कराने के बावजुद कर्तव्य पर उपस्थित न होकर पुलिस रेग्युलेशन के पैरा 64 (4) सेवा के अन्य शर्तों का उल्लंघन करना।

3) Respondent department examined its witnesses and exhibited documents. Inquiry Officer considered oral as well as documentary evidence and found the allegations made against the petitioner proved. Disciplinary authority concurred with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and inflicted the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 27.2.2019 and the period of absence from 10.7.2017 till 18.9.2018 was officially classified under the 'no work, no pay' principle. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range and same was dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2020. Petitioner preferred mercy petition/ revision before Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh and same was dismissed vide order dated 31.8.2021.

4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits penalty inflicted on the petitioner is wholly excessive and disproportionate looking to the alleged misconduct and Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered the medical condition of petitioner’ father. He further submits that petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and show-cause notice was never served upon him. He prays to quash the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority.

5) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was a member of armed force and he failed to report at the transferred place. He further submits that a full fledged department inquiry was conducted wherein article of charges was issued ; Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed ; department examined its witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. He further contends that Inquiry Officer submitted its report before the disciplinary authority, who concurred with the inquiry report and inflicted the penalty of removal from services according to Rule 221(A) of Police Regulation. He argues that this petition deserve to be dismissed.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.

7) Admittedly, petitioner was transferred from Police