1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPU

R

(Judgment/Order reserved on 09.03.2021)

(Delivered on 26.03.2021)

WPS No. 5287 of 2012

Toman Lal Sahu S/o Panth Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years

Ex-Head Constable, Batch No. 265 Ps Maudahapara, Raipur,

R/o Qtr. No. 7, City Kotwali Colony, Raipur, Distt Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Deptt of Home and

Police, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

2. The Director General of Police C.G., H. Q. - P. H. Q. Raipur

C.G.

3. The Inspector General of Police Raipur Range, Raipur, C.G.,

4. The Senior Suprintendent of Police Dist. Raipur ---

Respondents

For the applicant

: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ms.

Ritu Mishra, Mr. R.K. Kesharwani,

Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Somkant Verma, Panel Lawyer

WPS No. 5288 of 2012

Chandrabhan Singh Bhadoriya S/o Lt. Harchand Singh Aged

About 48 Years Ex Constable, Batch No. 1194 P.S.

Maudhapara, Raipur R/o Bhatgaon Chowk, Awadhpuri Colony,

Near Voda Moblie Tower, Raipur Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Deptt. of Home

& Police, Mantrly. DKS Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director General of Police H. Q. - P. H. Q. Raipur , C.G.,

2

3. The Inspector General of Police Raipur Range, Raipur , C.G.

4. The Senior Superintendent of Police Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

For the Petitioner

: Mr. R. K. Kesharwani, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Somkant Verma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

CAV ORDER

1. Heard.

2. The challenge in both these petitions is to the suspension

orders dated 20th July 2011 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent

dismissal orders dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-1).

Petitioner Toman Lal Sahu was working as Head Constable

and petitioner Chandrabhan Singh Bhadoriya was constable

and both were posted at Police Station Moudha Para, Raipur,

City Kotwali. As per the State, telephonic conversations

made in between criminal Chhota Annu @ Anwar and the

petitioners were recorded. Against Criminal Anwar, many

criminal cases were registered against him. It is alleged that

the petitioners being posted as Constable and Head

Constable wanted to favour the criminal and the

conversation to that effect was recorded and eventually on

the basis of CD transcriptions and the CD which were made

available to the higher officials of the Police, the petitioners

were dismissed from service in exercise of power under

Article 311(2) Clause (b), without there being any

3

departmental enquiry. Since the services were terminated

on the basis of the telephonic/mobile conversations by

invoking power under Article 311(2) Clause (b), as such, no

enquiry was held. when the said dismissal order was subject

to departmental appeal, the same was also affirmed in

appeal. The challenge in these petitions, therefore, is to the

dismissal orders passed by the respondent State-

Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

admittedly before the petitioners were dismissed from

services, though the ground was taken that if the

departmental enquiry is held, no evidence would be available

but the reading of dismissal order would show that the

mandatory requirement of Article 311(2)(b) were not

satisfied. They would submit that on the basis of source of

alleged conversation converted in a Compact Disk (C.D) the

petitioners' services were terminated. It was contended that

neither the source of CD was disclosed nor the CD was

supplied to the petitioners and even it was not revealed in

the dismissal order whether the voice which has been relied

upon by the State-respondents is that of the petitioners and

the accused Anwar. Learned counsel would further