2026:CGHC:20720-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 340 of 2026 Sangeeta Netam D/o Shri Gopichand Netam Aged About 47 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Behind Pump House, Sarkanda, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur (C.G.)- 495006 Presently Posted As Head Constable District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Home Department (Police) Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)

2 - Director General of Police Police Headquarters Naya Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.)

3 - Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Superintendent of Police District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

04 .0 5 .202 6 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1)

of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant (writ petitioner) has challenged the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 11608 of 2025 (Sangeeta Netam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that appellant is serving as a Head Constable in the Police Department of the State of Chhattisgarh and is presently posted in District Bilaspur. A criminal case bearing Crime No.82/2023 was registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and in relation to the investigation of the said case, certain allegations were subsequently raised against the appellant, who was then serving as a Head Constable, along with the supervising officer, namely Inspector Faizul Hooda Shah, forming the basis for the impugned departmental action. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, by order dated 08.04.2025, directed for initiation of common departmental proceedings under Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 against both the appellant and the co-delinquent officer. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2025, a common charge-sheet dated 10.04.2025 was issued against the appellant and the co-delinquent officer, followed by the appointment of an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 30.06.2025, thereby setting in motion the impugned departmental proceedings. The appellant challenged the aforesaid proceedings by filing WPS No.11608/2025, inter alia, on the specific ground that the Inspector General of Police lacked jurisdiction to sanction common departmental proceedings, and that under Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as ‘CCA Rules, 1966’), such sanction could have been validly granted only by the highest disciplinary authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on both delinquents, namely the Director General of Police. The appellant further specifically pleaded that the co-delinquent officer holding the rank of Inspector had been appointed to the said post by way of promotion under the authority of the Director General of Police, and consequently, the Director General of Police alone was the competent authority to sanction common departmental proceedings under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1966. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the Inspector General of Police is the appointing authority for the post of Inspector and, on that premise, is competent to approve the initia