The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside a charge sheet issued against a senior police officer after an unexplained fifteen-year delay, holding that such inordinate delay vitiates disciplinary action under Rule 22 of the 1965 Conduct Rules.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Irfan-Ul-Rahim Khan, a senior police officer, was served with a disciplinary charge sheet on 14 February 2023 alleging violation of Rule 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 for contracting a second marriage without prior permission. The petitioner sought quashing of the charge sheet and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Key Facts
- 01 May 1991: First marriage of the petitioner.
- 01 May 2007: Petitioner contracted a second marriage with Smt. Farha Khan (respondent No.6).
- 26 June 2008: Application filed under Rule 22(1) seeking prior permission for the second marriage.
- 24 May 2017, 26 December 2017, 27 May 2019: Complaints lodged by respondent No.6 before higher police authorities.
- 29 June 2019: Assistant Inspector General of Police (AIGP) reported the complaints to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG).
- 27 July 2019: DIG sought further clarification on whether bigamy was proved and whether permission had been obtained.
- 24 September 2019: AIGP sent a report stating that the petitioner’s application was under consideration.
- 15 October 2013: State alleges that the petitioner’s application was rejected on this date (no documentary proof).
- 27 October 2020: Internal enquiry reportedly initiated against the petitioner.
- 14 February 2023: Charge sheet issued (Annexure P/1, pages 7-11).
- 29 July 2026: Order reserved.
- 05 August 2026: Order pronounced and uploaded.
Procedural History
- 08 September 2019: Right to Information Act request produced official correspondence indicating the application was still pending.
- 14 February 2023: Charge sheet served on petitioner.
- Writ Petition (WPS No. 1883 of 2023) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the charge sheet and related disciplinary proceedings.
- 29 July 2026: Court reserved its order.
- 05 August 2026: Court delivered its judgment.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after an unexplained fifteen-year delay, that the employer had effectively condoned the alleged misconduct by allowing the petitioner to continue in service, and that there was no concealment of the second marriage.
- Respondents (State and officials): Claim the petitioner's application was rejected on 15 October 2013, that an internal enquiry began in October 2020, and that the charge sheet was therefore timely.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
- Quashing of Annexure P/1 (the charge sheet) and all disciplinary proceedings emanating from it.
- Any further relief the Court deems fit.
Case Details
Irfan-Ul-Rahim Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
2026:CGHC:34039
Court
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Date
05 August 2026
Case Number
WPS No. 1883 of 2023
Bench
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Counsel
Pet: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Anmol Verma, Mr. Siddharth Dubey
Res: Mr. D.R. Minj, Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi
Frequently Asked Questions
Rule 22(1) requires a government servant to obtain prior permission from the competent authority before contracting a second marriage. Failure to obtain such permission constitutes misconduct.
Condonation applies when an employer, having knowledge of the employee’s misconduct, voluntarily refrains from taking disciplinary action for a substantial period, thereby indicating forgiveness of the misconduct.
An unexplained and inordinate delay vitiates disciplinary proceedings, rendering them arbitrary and unfair, and may lead to the quashing of the charge sheet as held by the Court.
