Dismissal From Service Extreme Punishment; Should Not Be Inflicted As Per Police Regulations Unless All Other Means Of Corrections Have Failed: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant, by setting aside the Order of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. The Court clarified that Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations should have been considered before imposing an extreme penalty on the Constable (Appellant) for alleged misconduct.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “If the aforesaid provision is kept in juxta-position to Rule 64 of C.G. Police Regulations for which appellant was charged, it would reveal that despite there is provision in Regulation 64, which pertains to maintain discipline; to observe sub-ordination and to obey lawful orders promptly, even then clauses (iii) and (iv) have been framed in Regulation 226, which are applicable to Constables and which pertains to the penalty to be awarded to a Constable. Indeed, by keeping in mind Rule 64 of the said Regulations, the charges were framed in regard to disobeying lawful orders of the superiors and, therefore, before passing the extreme order of punishment of removal from service, according to us, clauses (iii) and (iv) of Regulation 226 ought to have been seen by the disciplinary as well as by the Appellate Authority.”

Advocate Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani appeared for the Appellant, while Government Advocate Sangharsh Pandey represented the Opposite Party.

Brief Facts

The Appellant, a retired Constable from the Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Sankri, was issued a charge sheet for allegedly refusing to perform camp security duty in violation of Sub-Rule (2)(4)(5) of Police Regulation No. 64 and the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Act, 1968.

A departmental inquiry was conducted, and the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement on the Appellant.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court pointed out that Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations, which deals with punishments, says that “dismissal is the last resource and should, ordinarily, not be inflicted until all other means of corrections have failed.”

The Bench noted, “The appellant submitted his representation against the show cause notice and described the reasons but the same has not been considered in positive manner and the disciplinary authority has imposed major penalty of forcefully compulsory retirement from service against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority without appreciating the grounds of memo of appeal and without assigning the appropriate reasons rejected the instant appeal in arbitrary and contrary to the principle of the natural justice,”

“Thus, we find some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant was serving on the lowest post of Constable, therefore, before passing the order of extreme punishment of dismissal from service, provisions of Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations, particularly, clauses (iii) and (iv) should have been taken into consideration,” the Court held.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Order of the Single Bench and held that “the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petition stands allowed. The order passed by the departmental appellate authority…whereby the order passed by the disciplinary authority…has been affirmed and the punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted on the appellant are hereby quashed and set aside.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Ramsagar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:11939-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment