The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that even where misconduct is established, the penalty of removal from service must bear a rational proportion to the gravity of the proven act. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside the dismissal of a police constable for conducting an unauthorized search, directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment with reasoned justification.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sumit Singh, was appointed as a Constable on compassionate grounds on 21.07.2007 following the death of his father, Late Phool Singh, who was a serving police officer. The petitioner discharged his duties diligently for nearly seven years until he was suspended on allegations of misconduct arising from an unauthorized search operation on 18.10.2014.
Key Facts
- The petitioner, posted as a Constable with R. No. 1954 at the Reserve Police Centre, proceeded to Village Dunda (within Tikrapara Police Station’s jurisdiction) on 18.10.2014 to conduct a search operation related to alleged contraband ganja trafficking.
- The operation was undertaken without prior authorization from superior officers or any formal order, violating Para 60 and Para 64(2) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations.
- The petitioner initially claimed in his reply to the show-cause notice that he acted on oral instructions from Platoon Commander Jitendra Sori, but later retracted this during the departmental enquiry, asserting he acted independently.
- An FIR (Crime No. 599/2014) was registered against him under Sections 384 and 34 IPC for alleged extortion and intimidation.
- The petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.10.2014.
- A charge-sheet was issued on 10.04.2015, alleging violation of Para 64(2) of Police Regulations.
- The petitioner submitted a detailed written reply on 16.05.2015.
- A departmental enquiry was initiated, but no formal appointment of an Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer was recorded.
- The enquiry proceedings were conducted under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which the State admitted were not formally adopted for police personnel.
- The petitioner alleged non-supply of material documents, denial of defence representative, and lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
- The enquiry concluded on 03.05.2016, finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct.
- The Superintendent of Police, Raipur (Respondent No. 4), passed the order of dismissal on 04.05.2016.
- The petitioner appealed to the Inspector General of Police (Respondent No. 3), dismissed on 04.05.2017.
- A further appeal was filed before the Director General of Police (Respondent No. 2) on 16.08.2016, dismissed on 08.10.2021.
- The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 12.02.2020 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 3975/2015, on benefit of doubt.
- Representations dated 03.03.2021 and 17.05.2022 seeking reinstatement were rejected by the DGP on 22.07.2022.
Procedural History
- 18.10.2014: Unauthorized search operation conducted by petitioner.
- 20.10.2014: Petitioner placed under suspension.
- 10.04.2015: Charge-sheet issued.
- 16.05.2015: Petitioner submitted written reply.
- 03.05.2016: Departmental enquiry concluded.
- 04.05.2016: Order of dismissal passed by Superintendent of Police.
- 04.05.2017: First appeal dismissed by Inspector General of Police.
- 16.08.2016: Second appeal filed before Director General of Police.
- 08.10.2021: Second appeal dismissed.
- 12.02.2020: Criminal acquittal by Judicial Magistrate First Class.
- 03.03.2021: First representation for reinstatement.
- 17.05.2022: Second representation for reinstatement.
- 22.07.2022: Representations rejected by DGP.
- 16.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal orders dated 04.05.2016, 04.05.2017, 08.10.2021 and 22.07.2022, reinstatement with full back wages, and consequential service benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the penalty of removal from service is lawful and proportionate when the proven misconduct is limited to conducting an unauthorized search operation, without evidence of corruption, violence, or abuse of power, and where the criminal case against the officer ended in acquittal on benefit of doubt.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by violation of natural justice: no formal appointment of Enquiry Officer, non-supply of key documents, denial of defence representative, and contradictory findings on the petitioner’s conduct. He relied on Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan to contend that acquittal in criminal proceedings, coupled with procedural irregularities, mandates reinstatement. He further invoked Regulation 241 of Police Regulations, which he claimed mandates reinstatement upon acquittal, and cited Panna Mehta v. State of M.P. and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat to support proportionality.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly, with full opportunity to defend, and that the petitioner’s contradictory statements undermined his credibility. It argued that departmental proceedings operate on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not invalidate disciplinary findings. The State maintained that removal was justified for gross insubordination and violation of Police Regulations, and that judicial review cannot substitute the disciplinary authority’s discretion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s conduct - undertaking a search operation without authorization - constituted misconduct under Para 64(2) of the Police Regulations. The Court noted that the petitioner’s shifting stance on whether he acted on oral instructions further weakened his credibility. However, the Court emphasized that the proven misconduct did not involve corruption, violence, extortion, or misuse of official position. The Court observed that the petitioner was not found to have seized property, inflicted harm, or acted with mala fide intent.
"The petitioner, on his own accord, proceeded to undertake a search operation without obtaining prior authorization or permission from the competent authority, thereby acting beyond the scope of his assigned duties. Such conduct, irrespective of the surrounding doubts relating to the substantive allegations, clearly constitutes misconduct and warrants appropriate disciplinary scrutiny."
The Court then turned to the proportionality of punishment. It cited Union of India v. Const Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622 and State of Karnataka v. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563 to affirm that courts may interfere only if the punishment is "strikingly disproportionate" or "shocks the conscience of the Court." It further relied on Vijay Singh Bhadauriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC Online MP 3832), where the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that failure to reach a VIP guest house on time could not justify dismissal.
The Court found that removal from service was an extreme penalty for an act that, while improper, did not involve moral turpitude or public harm. The acquittal in the criminal case, though not determinative, lent weight to the existence of doubt regarding the severity of the allegations. The Court held that the disciplinary authority failed to consider lesser penalties such as stoppage of increments, censure, or withholding of promotion.
"The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate; even if it is assumed that the petitioner conducted a search without proper authorization, such an act, by itself, cannot be construed as misconduct of such gravity as to warrant the extreme penalty of removal from service."
The Court explicitly declined to reinstate the petitioner with back wages, noting the principle of "no work no pay" applies where the employee was suspended and not performing duties.
The Verdict
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the finding of misconduct but set aside the order of dismissal dated 04.05.2016 and all consequential orders. The matter was remitted to the competent disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The authority must pass a speaking order justifying the penalty, considering lesser alternatives. The petitioner shall remain suspended until further orders. No back wages are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proportionality Trumps Automatic Removal
- Practitioners must now argue that removal from service is impermissible for non-violent, non-corrupt procedural violations unless the misconduct directly endangers public safety or institutional integrity.
- Disciplinary authorities must explicitly justify why lesser penalties (e.g., censure, stoppage of increments) are inadequate.
Acquittal in Criminal Cases Is Not Irrelevant
- While acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement, it must be factored into the proportionality assessment.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the departmental findings are consistent with the criminal court’s conclusion of reasonable doubt.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
-
Failure to formally appoint an Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer under the Civil Services Rules vitiates proceedings, even if the rules are not formally adopted.
-
Non-supply of documents must be substantiated with specific prejudice; mere allegations are insufficient, but documented denial of access to evidence remains fatal.
-
Always request a detailed record of document supply and appointment orders in departmental proceedings.
-
In writ petitions, focus on disproportionality rather than challenging the finding of misconduct.
-
Where the penalty is removal, cite Sunil Kumar and Umesh to invoke the "shocks the conscience" standard.
