^^ ^l^--' .1^ .....••- 3 1 C ^{ ^v btt-ORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. ^ 7 ^^ /2008 PETITIONER t RESPONDENTS :- Sanjeev Chaurasiya S/o Shri Ramsiya Chaurasiya, Aged about 35 years, Ex-constable, R/o Vishvakarma Chowk, Nandini Road, Jamul, District - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Director Generai of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General Raipur Range Raipur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent of Police Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^..^. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TKE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OROIRECTION OF LIKE NATURE. ;^;;i%^Ag /^^ g / ...."^,. l ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Writ Petition (Sl No. 6746 of 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Sanjeev Chaurasiya Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others. Mr. N.K. Vyas, counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TNDIA ORDER (08.12.2010) In theinstant petition the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: <<'10.1 That the preliminary enquiry, charge sheet dated 08.02.2007 and entire enquiry proceedings be kindly quashed. -40.2 That, the termination order dated 12.08.2007 Annexure P-3, appellate order dated 23.10.2007 Annexure P-2 and mercy appellate order dated 27.08.2008 Annexure P-1 be klndly quashed and the petitioner be reinstated with full backwages. 10.3 That, the record of the departmental enquiry and appellate proceedings be kindiy commanded. 10.4 That the cost of the proceedings be kindly awarded/' However, during the arguments counsel for the petitioner subm'rts that he would confine his argument only to the short point i.e. v>/hether the appeliate authority was justified in rejecting the statutory appeal of the petitioner in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason there for and without applying its mind. 2. Counse! for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 12.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) the services of the petitioner who was working as constable were terminated after conducting Departmental Enquiry. This order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rajnadgaon. Against this order of "^. 1;!' G »»^ termination an appea! was fiied by the petitioner before the Inspector Genera! of Police who vide order dated 23.10.2007 has dismissed the same by confirming the order passed by Superintendent of Poiice, Rajnadgaon. 3. Counsei for the petitioner submlts that while dedding the appeal, the appeiSate authority has not assigned any reason whatsoever and did not even enter into the merits of the case and passed the order impugned In a mechanica! manner. He submits that in view of the Poiice Reguiatlon 273, the appellate authority was under obligatlon to decide the appeai by a reasoned order. Reievant Police Reguiation reads as under: "273. - Order.passed on. - Every order passed in appeai sha!l contaln the reason on whlch If is based. !f an order of dlsmissa! is annulled, the offlcer annullmg 11 shafl declare whether the penod of enforced absence from duty shall count towards penslon or not A copy of evsfj appeilate order, with the reasons on which <Y /s basQd, wii! be glven free of cost to fhe ^ppe!!ant." 4. Counsei for the petitloner reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court In the matter of Chalrman. Disciplinarv Authoritv. Gramin Bank Vs. Jaadish Sharan Varshiie^_&others rsoorted in 2009 A!R SCW 3321 & in the matter of_DIvri!._eorest_0!5csr. & others Vs. MadhysydtolSafi reported In AIR SCW 1385. in these two decislons 11 has heid by the Supreme Court that the order of the appejlate/revisjonaj Authority afflrrnlng the punishment without giving any for that is improper and llable to be set aside. 5. Counsei for the petitionsr submits that the present matter can be remitted to the appeilate authority with a direction to decide the appeai of the petitioner by a wel! reasoned order. S. Counsei for the respondents however opposes the daim of the petitioner and submits that In the matter of punishment after a fuli-fiedged departmentai enquiry, the appeliate authority. is not rsquired to any whl!e deciding the appeai and it is simply requlred to confirm the order of the disclpiinary authority. 3 .,,,^,^''^ /" \I.i D7- \ 7. Heard counsei for the parties and perused the material available on record inciuding the police reguiatlon as referred to by the petitioner and the judgments of the Supreme Court cited sbove. cw. This Court is of the considered opjnion that the appellate .luthority was requlred to a weii reasoned order while confirming the decision taken by the discipllnary authority. Accordingly the petitlon is aSIowed and the order impugned is set c.side. The matter Is remanded back to the appeilate authority for being decided in accordance with !aw In an objective manner. ©. It Is the duty of the petjtlc.ner to apprise the appellate "uthority ofthis order and request it for deciding the appea! afresh. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge