Dismissal Is Last Resort; Disciplinary Authorities Must Consider Lesser Penalties Before Extreme Punishment: Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside the compulsory retirement of a police constable, finding the punishment to be disproportionate. The court held that disciplinary authorities must consider lesser punishments provided under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations before imposing major...
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal set aside the compulsory retirement of a police constable, finding the punishment to be disproportionate. The court held that disciplinary authorities must consider lesser punishments provided under Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations before imposing major penalties on constables. The court observed that dismissal should be last resort and should not be inflicted until all other means have failed.
Background
Ramsagar Sinha was a constable at Sankri, Bilaspur. On 31.08.2017, the disciplinary authority issued an article of charges against him alleging that he refused to perform important camp security duty and disobeyed orders from superior officers. The authorities claimed his actions violated Sub-Rule (2)(4)(5) of Police Regulation No. 64 and Sections 16 and 17 of the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Act, 1968.
After a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Sinha filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal before the Division Bench.
Arguments
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, representing Ramsagar Sinha, argued that the Single Judge failed to appreciate several crucial aspects of the case. He contended that Sinha was posted in a hardcore Naxal area at the age of 56 despite his poor health, which prevented him from reporting for duty on 24.07.2017. He argued that the inquiry committee failed to conduct a medical examination to verify Sinha's health claims. Moreover, he submitted that according to Police Regulation 226(iii) and (iv), since Sinha was serving at the lowest post of Constable, the appropriate punishment for the alleged misconduct would have been a warning, not compulsory retirement.
Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, representing the State, countered that Sinha was afforded sufficient opportunity during the departmental inquiry. He argued that Sinha deliberately flouted orders of his superior officers, when as a member of the armed forces, high discipline was expected from him. He contended that the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct, and the Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court examined the charge-sheet and noted that while Sinha was accused of disobeying orders, he had cited physical ill-health and incapacity as reasons. Noting that Sinha had not treated his superior officer with hostility or addressed him in derogatory terms, the court refused to invoke Section 17 of the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Act, 1968.
Secondly, the court explained that Regulation 226 outlines a system of punishment particularly for constables; it provides that for minor offenses by constables, authorities should first issue warnings before moving to more serious punishments. Thus, noting that Sinha was serving as the lowest Constable, the court held that the disciplinary authority should have issued a warning before imposing compulsory retirement.
Thirdly, the court held that despite there being provisions in Regulation 64 about maintaining discipline and obeying lawful orders, Regulation 226 specifically apply to constables and outline the penalties to be awarded to them. The court stressed that before passing the extreme order of removal from service, the disciplinary and appellate authorities ought to have considered these clauses.
Thus, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order.
Decided on: 11.03.2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:11939-DB | Ramsagar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate
