The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified the jurisdictional limits for initiating common departmental proceedings against government servants holding different ranks, reinforcing that only the highest authority competent to impose dismissal on all involved officers may sanction such proceedings under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1966. This ruling has significant implications for disciplinary administration across state police services.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sangeeta Netam, a Head Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police, was named as a delinquent officer in a criminal case registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation revealed alleged collusion between the appellant and Inspector Faizul Hooda Shah, a supervising officer. Consequently, common departmental proceedings were initiated against both officers under Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules, 1966).
Key Facts
- The appellant has been serving as Head Constable since her appointment in the non-gazetted police service
- The co-delinquent officer, Inspector Faizul Hooda Shah, was promoted to the rank of Inspector under the authority of the Director General of Police (DGP)
- The promotion to Inspector is governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, which vest exclusive authority for promotion in the DGP
- The Inspector General of Police (IGP), Bilaspur Range, issued an order on 08.04.2025 directing initiation of common departmental proceedings against both officers
- A common charge-sheet was issued on 10.04.2025, followed by appointment of an Enquiry Officer on 30.06.2025
- The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the IGP to sanction such proceedings, arguing that only the DGP, as the authority competent to impose dismissal on the Inspector, could initiate common proceedings
Procedural History
- 08.04.2025: Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, ordered initiation of common departmental proceedings under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1966
- 10.04.2025: Common charge-sheet issued against appellant and Inspector Faizul Hooda Shah
- 30.06.2025: Enquiry Officer appointed by IGP
- 2025: Writ Petition No. 11608 of 2025 filed by appellant before Single Judge, Chhattisgarh High Court
- 25.02.2026: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding IGP competent to sanction proceedings
- 28.03.2026: Writ Appeal No. 340 of 2026 filed before Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the order dated 08.04.2025 initiating common departmental proceedings, setting aside the charge-sheet dated 10.04.2025, and declaring the appointment of the Enquiry Officer void for want of jurisdiction. She further sought a direction that only the Director General of Police may initiate such proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 permits an Inspector General of Police to sanction common departmental proceedings against a Head Constable and an Inspector, when the authority competent to impose dismissal on the Inspector is the Director General of Police.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Ankit Pandey, argued that Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1966 mandates that common proceedings against multiple government servants can only be initiated by the authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on all. Since the co-delinquent officer is an Inspector, whose disciplinary authority lies exclusively with the Director General of Police under the Police Recruitment Rules, 2021, only the DGP could sanction the proceedings. He relied on Alexius Minj Through Lrs. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 SCC OnLine Chh 4411) and multiple Madhya Pradesh High Court judgments to establish that promotion authority and disciplinary authority are co-extensive. He emphasized that the IGP, though a senior officer, is not the appointing or dismissing authority for Inspectors and therefore lacks jurisdiction under Rule 18.
For the Respondent/State
The State, represented by Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General, contended that the IGP, as a senior officer vested with administrative and disciplinary powers under the Police Recruitment Rules, 2021, is competent to initiate common proceedings. He argued that Rule 18 does not require the sanctioning authority to be the sole dismissing authority for all officers, but merely the highest among those competent to impose dismissal. He maintained that the IGP has inherent disciplinary jurisdiction over Head Constables and can act on behalf of the DGP in routine matters. He further argued that the judgments cited by the appellant dealt with promotion disputes, not disciplinary jurisdiction, and were therefore distinguishable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual and contextual analysis of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1966, which states: "Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding."
The Court noted that the appellant and the Inspector hold different ranks with distinct disciplinary hierarchies. The Head Constable falls under the disciplinary control of the Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police, while the Inspector is under the direct control of the Director General of Police, as confirmed by the Police Recruitment Rules, 2021. The Court observed that the promotion to Inspector is a statutory process governed exclusively by the DGP, and therefore, the power to dismiss an Inspector also vests solely in the DGP.
"The authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on all such Government servants must be the highest among them, and where one officer can only be dismissed by the DGP, no lesser authority can validly initiate proceedings against him in a common proceeding."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that delegation or administrative convenience could override the statutory mandate of Rule 18. It held that the phrase "competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on all" is not a flexible or delegable power but a jurisdictional threshold. The IGP, though senior, is not the dismissing authority for the Inspector and therefore cannot satisfy the condition under Rule 18.
The Court further distinguished the cited judgments, noting that while they addressed promotion or individual disciplinary actions, none dealt with the specific interplay between Rule 18 and hierarchical disciplinary authority. The Telangana judgment was noted as persuasive but not binding. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation must prioritize the plain meaning of the rule over administrative expediency.
The Court concluded that the Single Judge erred in holding that the IGP’s general supervisory role conferred jurisdiction under Rule 18. The initiation of proceedings by the IGP was a jurisdictional nullity, rendering the charge-sheet and appointment of the Enquiry Officer legally non-est.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the order dated 25.02.2026 of the Single Judge and quashed the order dated 08.04.2025 initiating common departmental proceedings. The charge-sheet dated 10.04.2025 and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer dated 30.06.2025 were declared void. The Court directed that the matter be referred to the Director General of Police for reconsideration of whether to initiate common proceedings under Rule 18, in accordance with law. The State was directed to bear the costs of the appeal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disciplinary Authority Cannot Be Assumed by Administrative Rank Alone
- Practitioners must verify the statutory dismissing authority for each officer before initiating common proceedings
- Merely being a senior officer does not confer jurisdiction under Rule 18 if the officer lacks the power to dismiss any one of the delinquents
- Departmental authorities must cross-check promotion and disciplinary hierarchies before issuing charge-sheets
Promotion Authority Determines Disciplinary Authority in Hierarchical Services
- In services where promotions are controlled by a single authority (e.g., DGP for Inspectors), that authority is the exclusive dismissing authority
- The Police Recruitment Rules, 2021, and similar service rules must be read in conjunction with CCA Rules to determine jurisdiction
- Any deviation renders proceedings void ab initio, regardless of procedural regularity
Common Proceedings Require Uniform Jurisdictional Threshold
- Where officers are under different disciplinary authorities, Rule 18 requires the highest among them to act
- Consent of other authorities is not sufficient; the sanctioning authority must have the power to dismiss all
- This principle applies equally to police, education, and other state services governed by CCA Rules or similar frameworks
