6 c-SiNGi f.9sic R @KKS*N IN THE HIGH CQUT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FS1 N0. ^>3>0) 72011 PETITIONER / Lal Bahadur Patel, son of Shri Rajmani Patel, aged about 44 years, Ex Constable 859 10th Batalion SAF Surguja, Chhattisgarh, resident of vmage Tedkala, Post Pandri, TehsU Vapothar Dema, [M.P.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^Y..<-""..--"". '.l^.--:^\--" ^^^"" ,;^^" 2. 3. t-f' 4. < 5. ^' State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary Hoine (Police) Departnient Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur, Chhattisgarh Assistant Inspector General of Police Chhatdsgarh Armed Forces, Head Quarter Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Deputy Inspecfor General of Police, CAF Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Commandant, 10th Batalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Surguja, Chhattisgarh WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE^CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT m THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. AND ANY OTHER WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDBRS AND DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS The pedtioner nained above, most respectfully beg to subniit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITION@l fSI: As given in the cause tide. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT FS1: As'given in the cause dtie. t^BlESK^iud——' :%. st ..-^?^. ' 't;S;;" UT PETiTiON (S] Versus Lal Bahadur Patel State of Chhattisgarh & Others IT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 22S OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDIA tish K. tri, J.) Present:- Shri D. Patel, Advocate forthe petjtioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. (Passed on this 22nd day of February, 2011) sy thls petition, ths petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed bythe Commandant 10th Battalion, CAF Surguja, by which the petitioner has been retired from his services compuisoriiy. Ths petitioner also challenges the order dated i.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Deputy Inspector Genera! of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bliaspur, by which the sppeai preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.1.2009 has been dismissed. The petitloner further chaiienges the order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, by which the mercy appsal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsei appearlng for.the petltioner submits that whife the petitioner was posted at Siiflll, Poiice Station Basantpur, Surguja, he iook leave on 15.6.2007 for going to his native piace Rewa. According to the petitioner, two Constables namely Dinesh Singh and Akshay Kumar, asked the peSitioner to drop him at Railway Station and iccordingiy the petitioner accompanied ihem. However, at the midway to the Railway Station, both t'ne Constables assauited the petitioner and snatched the articles from the petitioner. An offence was registered against the sald two Constables. Thereafter, the Second "Additionai Session Judge (F.T.C.) Surajpur, by .order dated -28.11.2007 (AnnexureP-5) directed the petitioner to lodge complaint case against the accused persons. Subsequently, the Commandant ii liEi ^ issuea' a letter ds.ted 5.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) and asked the petitioner to submlt the expianation. The charge sheet dated 4.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) of the charge that the petitioner has turned hostiie before the Court of !aw and due to the said act of the petitioner, the accused persons were acquitted and as such he had lost credibility and damaged the image of the department, was issued by the Commandant. The chame reads as under: •t. ^Hlcp—01— Hl'l'flil '^Wlvi^ ^ WJS' veteti ?^7 SfVri^ ^t ^SFI^T ^797^7 f^riPT ^t"1 §7?99?' ^ f^^'-H-fi^dS ®^?=77'/ flsssjr^w s?t ^t ^^r After compietion of the enquiry, the enquiry report dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure P-7) was submitted. On the basis ofthe enquiry report, the order dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) was passed by the Commandant by retiring the petitioner from the service compulsorily. Seing aggrleved by the sald order, the petitioner preferred an appea! before the Deputy inspector General of Poiice, Bilaspur Range, iiaspur, who by order dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-2) rejected the appeai of the petitioner and maintained the order passed by the Commandant. There against the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before the Director General of Police. The Director General of Pollce by order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the mercy appeal without considerina the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective and also without appreciating the relevant provisions. Thus, this petition. On perusa! of the documents, it is noticed that while passing the order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), the Commandant observed that the services of the petitloner were not satisfactory and during his employment, there were 31 minor penalties against the petitioner and one major penalty. The petitioner has been retired form the service compulsoriiy looking to his family background, though the petitioner was liable to be terminated. The petitioner has not pointed out any deficiency or defect in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer having examined al! the relevant documents and witnesses, have come to the conclusiQn that the charge leveled against him was found proved. / y^ li; .'i' -^/ ff J It is wei! settled principle of law that the High 'Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision untess it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court. In the case on hand, no deficiency in decision-making process has been pointed out. fSee: Govt. of T.N. snd others Vs. S. VeJ Raj\ Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and othersF, Yoginath Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and anothsi^, B.C. Chatun.'edi Vs. Union of India and others snd V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and others3). Thus, this Court may not interfere with the conciusion and finding that the punishment of compulsorily retirement passed, after having recorded other factors, namely famiiy background and of imposition of several minor penaltles against the petitioner, in the past. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Ashok Kumar Singh and 3nothe!B observed that in a case of police constable being a member of the disciplined force, demandina strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any other department is required. In viev.' of foregoing and applying the well settled principies of !aw to the facts of the present case, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ;{199752SCC708 '(1999$ 2 SCC 10 3 ^ QQQ^ 7 SC-C 739 ^(19955^6 SCC 749 ° (20Qp) 7 SCC 338 ° (1996)1 SCC302 *^ ."itAt. nitMfeiL, z