VINOD VISHWAKARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010408332026 2026:CGHC:44987
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.27
12:06:06 +0530
WPS No. 7631 of 2026
Vinod Vishwakarma S/o Shri J.R. Vishwakarma Aged About 45 Years
Occupation - (Suspended) Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), Third
Vahini C.S.B.L., Amleshwar Durg, District - Durg (C.G). R/o- E-73
Indraprast Phase-Ii, Raipura, Thana D.D. Nagar, District Raipur (C.G)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station
Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G)
2 - Under Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G)
4 - Inspector General Of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Police
Headquarters, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur,
(C.G.)
5 - Deputy Inspector General, C.G. Shastara Bal, 19 Pokhran Vahini,
Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

2
6 - Chandrashekhar Tiwari Working As Steno At Office Of Superintend
Of Police (Gramin) Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).
7 - Vijay Tirkey Working As Assistant Commander At Third Vahini
C.S.B.L., Amleshwar Durg, District - Durg (C.G).
8 - Arvind Kujur (Retired From The Post Of DIG, Madhya Range),
Through The Chhattisgarh Armed Force Madhya Range PHQ, Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.).
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate alongwith Mr.
Virendra Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the
impugned orders dated 26.05.2026 and 19.06.2026 (Annexures
P/1 and P/2, respectively), whereby the Inquiry Officer appointed
to inquire into the complaints lodged by the petitioner against
certain officers was changed and a fresh inquiry was ordered to
be conducted by another Inquiry Officer.
2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an officer of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force, who
joined the Third Battalion, Amleshwar, Durg, in the year 2009 and
has discharged his duties with sincerity and dedication. He
submits that the petitioner lodged complaints dated 12.02.2025
and 12.02.2026 against certain officers alleging financial

3
irregularities, pursuant to which an inquiry was initiated vide order
dated 12.03.2026 and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is
submitted that the Inquiry Officer recorded the petitioner's
statement, examined 12 witnesses and collected relevant
documents and evidence in connection with the allegations.
(b) Learned counsel further submits that, while the inquiry was
nearing completion, upon an application submitted by the officers
against whom allegations had been made, the respondent
authorities, vide impugned order dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure
P/1), changed the Inquiry Officer without any allegation of bias or
misconduct against the earlier Inquiry Officer. Subsequently, vide
order dated 19.06.2026, another Inquiry Officer was appointed to
conduct the inquiry afresh. Learned counsel further submits that,
thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order
dated 20.08.2026 on the allegation of obtaining Government
records without permission, which, according to him, was intended
to victimise him for raising complaints against the said officers.
He, therefore, challenges the impugned orders as arbitrary and
illegal.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and
submits that the impugned orders have been passed by the
competent authority in the administrative interest. It is submitted
that the change of Inquiry Officer and the subsequent suspension
of the petitioner were effected in accordance with the extant rules
and procedure. Therefore, no interference by this Court is
warranted.

4
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
5. Bare perusal of the record would show that the petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 26.05.2026 and 19.06.2026, whereby
the Inquiry Officer was changed and another Inquiry Officer was
appointed to conduct the inquiry afresh into the complaints lodged
by the petitioner. It is well settled that the conduct of an inquiry
and the appointment or change of an Inquiry Officer fall within the
administrative domain of the competent authority. Mere change of
the Inquiry Officer, in the absence of any demonstrated violation of
statutory provisions or prejudice to the petitioner, does not warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
the impugned orders have been passed in violation of any
statutory provision or that the change of the Inquiry Officer has
caused any legally sustainable prejudice to him. The allegations of
mala fides and victimisation, being unsupported by sufficient
material on record, do not furnish any ground for interference.
7. As far as the role of the petitioner, being the complainant in an
internal inquiry, is concerned, once a complaint is lodged against
an officer, it is for the competent authority to conduct the inquiry in
accordance with the applicable rules and procedure. The
complainant cannot dictate or interfere with the procedure of the
internal enquiry conducted by the department. Thus, this Court
finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any valid ground to
challenge the impugned orders.

5
8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar