The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the dismissal of police constable Surendra Singh Kachhawah, holding that a disciplinary enquiry is vitiated when the Enquiry Officer crosses the line from an impartial adjudicator and assumes the role of the department’s prosecutor.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal passed the order on August 31, 2026, in Surendra Singh Kachhawah v. Additional Director General of Police (Administration) & Ors.
Background of the Case
Kachhawah had faced departmental proceedings over an allegation that he entered into a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife, without obtaining prior permission from the department, allegedly violating Rule 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
The disciplinary authority initially ordered stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, the penalty was enhanced in appeal to dismissal from service in January 2004. The High Court later set aside that order and directed reconsideration of the appeal. The appellate authority eventually rejected the appeal again in December 2018, leading to the present writ petition.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined whether the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 applied to subordinate police personnel. Relying on earlier judicial decisions, it held that these rules apply to police constables as well, alongside the Police Regulations.
The Court clarified that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not automatically invalidate a disciplinary enquiry. However, the Enquiry Officer must remain independent and impartial.
“The Enquiry Officer is required to maintain complete impartiality and cannot assume the role of the prosecutor.”
In Kachhawah’s case, no Presenting Officer had been appointed. More importantly, the Enquiry Officer cross-examined material witnesses, including Kachhawah and Sunita Singh, and put leading and suggestive questions aimed at eliciting evidence supporting the charges. The High Court held that this went beyond merely seeking clarification and compromised the Enquiry Officer’s independent role.
Decision
The High Court quashed the January 23, 2004 dismissal order and the December 28, 2018 appellate order.
It directed that Kachhawah be reinstated if he had not reached the age of superannuation and granted consequential benefits, excluding back wages. He was given liberty to make a representation regarding back wages within six weeks.
The Court also left it open to the respondents to conduct the disciplinary enquiry afresh from the stage of evidence, in accordance with law.
The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.
