SURENDRA SINGH KACHHAWAH vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Page 1 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)

CGHC010210112019 2026:CGHC:38458
AFR
Digitally
signed by
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
Date:
2026.09.02
15:11:01
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
WPS No. 5000 of 2019
Surendra Singh Kachhawah, S/o Shri Surat Singh, aged about 53
years, R/o Qtr. No. 2, Police Wireless Colony, Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1. Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Police Head
Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Inspector General of Police (Tele Communication), Police Head
Qurtrer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Shri Rakesh Tiwari, Inspector (Radio-T/C), Police Wireless Colony,
Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
Single Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
31/08/2026
1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question
legality, validity and correctness of order dated 23-1-2004 (Annexure
P-19) passed by respondent No.1, by which a penalty of removal from
service has been imposed upon him, which has been affirmed by the

Page 2 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
appellate authority – respondent No.1 by order dated 28-12-2018
(Annexure P-27).
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual
backdrop: -
Facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition
3. The petitioner was subjected to regular disciplinary proceeding on
the charge that during the lifetime of his first wife Smt. Neelam
Singh, without obtaining prior permission from the Department, he
entered into second marriage with one Sunita Singh and thereby
violated Rule 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the Conduct Rules of 1965’). After regular
departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty
of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect upon the
petitioner which was enhanced in appeal by the Additional Director
General of Police (Administration) by order dated 23-1-2004 by
imposing penalty of dismissal from service which he challenged
before this Court in WP No.2075/2004 which this Court set aside
and directed the appellate authority to hear and disposal of the
appeal in accordance with law. Ultimately, again, by the impugned
order dated 28-12-2018, the appeal was dismissed leading to filing of
this writ petition.
4.
Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, would submit that since the petitioner is Constable
(Radio/Telecommunication) in the Department of Police, Wireless

Page 3 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
(Telecommunication), the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short,
‘the Rules of 1966’) would be applicable and by virtue of Rule 14(5)(c)
of the said Rules, in absence of the first Presenting Officer, the
Enquiry Officer has acted as the prosecutor, therefore, it is violation
of the principles of natural justice and thus the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2/State, would submit that looking to the fact
that the petitioner has entered into second marriage with Sunita
Singh during the lifetime of his first wife Neelam Singh and both the
wives have been examined as prosecution witnesses and they have
supported the case of the Department, the petitioner has rightly been
dismissed from service which calls for no interference in exercise of
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
7. The first question for consideration would be, whether the Rules of
1966 govern departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner herein/subordinate police personnel, including Police
Constables, and, if so, to what extent do the said Rules operate in
conjunction with the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations?

Page 4 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
8. The issue is no longer res integra. The Madhya Pradesh High Court
in the matter of Premchandra Dhalpuria, Ex-Sub-Inspector,
Police, Guna, M.P. v. State, through the Inspector General,
1
Police, Bhopal has clearly held that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are applicable to
disciplinary proceedings against subordinate police personnel,
including Police Constables, by virtue of Regulation 213 of the
Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. It has further been held by the M.P.
High Court that the Police Regulations do not exclude the application
of the CCA Rules; rather, both operate alongside each other, and
observed as under: -
“The Police Regulations which have the status of statutory
rules framed in exercise of powers under section 46(2) read
with sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 provide for the
manner of appointment of police officers. As such, the
matters concerning members of the police force will primarily
be governed by the Police Act, 1861 or any similar local
enactments and the Police Regulations. Civil Service
Regulations, or for the matter of that, fundamental rules
framed under those Regulations will be attracted in case they
have been adopted by the State Government so as to be
applicable to the member of the Police force and further if
those provisions do not come in conflict with the specific
provisions of the Police Regulations.”
9.
The principle of law laid down by the M.P. High Court in
Premchandra Dhalpuria (supra) has been followed with approval
by the M.P. High Court in the matter of Mahesh Kumar
2
Shrikishan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
in which it has been held by the M.P. High Court as under: -
1 1967 SCC OnLine MP 119 : 1970 MP LJ 430
2 1985 SCC OnLine MP 72 : 1985 MP LJ 516

Page 5 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
“ 22. There is another aspect involved in the petition as there
were common proceedings. It may be pointed out that
despite the Police Regulations governing a Departmental
Enquiry against a Police Officer in subordinate service and
rule 3(1)(d) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control
& Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Control & Appeal Rules),
which reads thus:
“3(1) These rules shall apply to every Government
servant but shall not apply to—
(d) any person for whom special provision is made, in
respect of matters covered by these rules, by or under
any law for the time being in force or by or under any
agreement entered into by or with the previous
approval of the Governor before or after the
commencement of these rules, in regard to matters
covered by such special provisions.”
the applicability of the Control & Appeal Rules is not
altogether excluded. According to the ratio of the decision in
Premchandra's case [1970 MPLJ 430.] where the Police
Regulations are silent, the provisions of the Control & Appeal
Rules would apply in departmental inquiries against
subordinate Police Staff. This is what has been laid down in
the aforesaid decision:
“Civil Service Regulations, as in force in the State are
applicable to all civil Departments including the police.
Within that Department, there are the Police
Regulations which naturally prevail wherever there is
conflict between them and the Civil Service
Regulations; but in a field like temporary-employment,
for which there is no special police Regulation, the Civil
Service Regulations as in force in this State, apply. A
probationary Sub-Inspector can be removed without a
proceeding under Article 311, unless be has been
confirmed during the interval. Of course if a
probationary Officer is to be sent away with a black-
mark, then proceedings would be necessary.”
(Emphasis supplied).
10.
As such, the Rules of 1966 would apply to departmental/disciplinary
proceedings against subordinate police personnel, including Police
Constables.

Page 6 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
11. Admittedly, in the instant case, no presenting officer was appointed
in the present disciplinary proceedings in compliance of Rule 14(5)
(c) of the Rules of 1966 and it is the case of the petitioner that the
Enquiry Officer himself has acted as prosecutor and therefore it is
violation of the principle of natural justice, as such, the enquiry is
vitiated.
12. The question would be, whether the Enquiry Officer, in absence of a
Presenting Officer, could assume the role of adjudicator/prosecutor
by cross-examining the material prosecution witnesses through
leading and suggestive questions and thereby the disciplinary
proceeding/enquiry is vitiated?
13. In this regard, Rule 14(5)(c) of the Rules of 1966 may be noticed
herein profitably, which states as under: -
“ 14. Procedure for imposing penalties. -(1) to (4) xxx xxx
xxx
(5) (a) and (b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquiries into any
article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for
holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order,
appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be
known as the “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the
case in support of the articles of charge.
xxx xxx xxx”
14. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it evident
that it provides for the appointment of a Presenting Officer to
present, on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the case in support
of the articles of charge during the departmental enquiry. The

Page 7 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
provision thus contemplates that the case in support of the charges is
to be presented by the Presenting Officer, while the Enquiry Officer is
required to remain impartial and adjudicate upon the evidence
placed before him. However, appointment of a Presenting Officer in
a disciplinary proceeding is not mandatory and furthermore, mere
non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not, by itself, vitiate
the enquiry, provided that the Enquiry Officer acts fairly, reasonably
and independently and conducts the proceedings in accordance with
the principles of natural justice. Moreover, where, in the absence of
a Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer assumes the role of the
Department’s prosecutor by cross-examining material witnesses and
putting leading or suggestive questions to elicit evidence in support
of the charges, he ceases to remain an impartial adjudicator. Such
conduct amounts to an impermissible assumption of the
prosecutorial role, resulting in bias and denial of a fair and impartial
enquiry, and consequently vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.
15. In this regard, the landmark decision rendered by the Division Bench
of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Union of India, Through
Its Secretary, Ministry of Railway and others v. Naseem
3
Siddiqui deserves to be noted profitably in which R.V. Raveendran,
C.J., as His Lordship then was, after elaborately considering the issue
summarised the principles as under: -
“We may summarise the principles thus:
3 2004 SCC OnLine MP 678

Page 8 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall
not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a
prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the. Disciplinary Authority to
appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-
appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate
the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to
obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution
witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a
Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to
the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should
thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine
such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts regular examination-in-
chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the
prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the
departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-
examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions
to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry
Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate
the inquiry and it is reccognised that the Iquiry Officer can
put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the
question whether an Inquiry officer acted as a Presenting
Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner
in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.”
16.
The decision rendered by the M.P. High Court in Naseem
Siddiqui’s case (supra) was noted with approval by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Ram
4
Lakhan Sharma in which it has been held by their Lordships of
the Supreme Court that the disciplinary proceedings are quasi-
judicial proceedings and the Enquiry Officer is in the position of an
independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially. It
4 (2018) 7 SCC 670

Page 9 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
has further been held by their Lordships that the authority exercising
quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair
and impartial manner. Their Lordships observed in paragraph 28 of
the report as under: -
“ 28. When the statutory rule does not contemplate
appointment of Presenting Officer whether non-appointment
of Presenting Officer ipso facto vitiates the inquiry? We have
noticed the statutory provision of Rule 27 which does not
indicate that there is any statutory requirement of
appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry.
It is thus clear that statutory provision does not mandate
appointment of Presenting Officer. When the statutory
provision does not require appointment of Presenting Officer
whether there can be any circumstances where principles of
natural justice can be held to be violated is the broad question
which needs to be answered in this case. We have noticed
above that the High Court found breach of principles of
natural justice in Enquiry Officer acting as the prosecutor
against the respondents. The Enquiry Officer who has to be
independent and not representative of the disciplinary
authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceeds to
act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to
punish an employee, the principle of bias comes into place.”
17. Relying upon the decision of the M.P. High Court in Naseem
Siddiqui’s case (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in Ram Lakhan Sharma’s case (supra) that where
the Enquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court further, while endorsing the
principles enumerated in Naseem Siddiqui’s case (supra) held
that there is no requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in
each and every case, whether statutory rules enable the authorities to
make an appointment or are silent, and observed as under: -

Page 10 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
“ 34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above,
however, the principles have to be carefully applied in fact
situation of a particular case. There is no requirement of
appointment of Presenting Officer in each and every case,
whether statutory rules enable the authorities to make an
appointment or are silent. When the statutory rules are silent
with regard to the applicability of any facet of principles of
natural justice the applicability of principles of natural justice
which are not specifically excluded in the statutory scheme
are not prohibited. When there is no express exclusion of
particular principle of natural justice, the said principle shall
be applicable in a given case to advance the cause of justice.
…
36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer
who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted
as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be
decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case. In
the present case we have noticed that the High Court had
summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing
the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that
the Enquiry Officer himself led the examination-in-chief of
the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court
further held that the Enquiry Officer acted himself as
prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The
above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed
from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court giving
rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the
Enquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of
independent adjudicator was lost while adversely affecting his
independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the
principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was
right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to
the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it
clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of
the present cases.”
18. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid legal
proposition, it is quite vivid that the appointment of Presenting
Officer is directory in nature and a disciplinary enquiry is a quasi-
judicial proceeding in which the Enquiry Officer acts as an

Page 11 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
independent and impartial adjudicator and is required to conduct the
proceedings fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the principles
of natural justice. It is further held that the Enquiry Officer cannot
act as a representative of the Department or conduct the enquiry
with a closed or biased mind. The subsequent decisions, particularly
in Naseem Siddiqui’s case (supra) and in Ram Lakhan
Sharma’s case (supra) specifically deal with the effect of non-
appointment of a Presenting Officer. These judgments clarify that
mere non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not, by itself,
vitiate an enquiry; however, in such a situation, the Enquiry Officer
must continue to remain impartial and cannot assume the role of the
prosecutor. While he may put questions to witnesses for clarification
or to ascertain the truth, he cannot conduct the examination or cross-
examination in a manner that advances or establishes the
Department’s case, including by putting leading or suggestive
questions to the witnesses. It is thus, clear that while non-
appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself, does not vitiate a
disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is required to maintain
complete impartiality and cannot assume the role of the proseuctor.
However, in the present case, though the Presenting Officer was not
appointed, the Enquiry Officer himself has cross-examined the
material prosecution witnesses namely, Surendra Singh Kachhawaha
(PW-7) i.e. the petitioner herein and Smt. Sunita Singh (PW-8) –
second wife of the petitioner on 19-12-2002, and put leading and
suggestive questions to elicit evidence in support of the charges.

Page 12 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
Relying upon the statements of the said witnesses, the Enquiry
Officer proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of entering into second
marriage with Sunita Singh during the subsistence of first marriage/
lifetime of first wife Neelam Singh. Such conduct goes beyond mere
clarification and amounts to the Enquiry Officer assuming the
prosecutorial role, thereby compromising his position as an
independent adjudicator and giving rise to a clear apprehension of
bias. As such, the disciplinary proceedings having been conducted in
breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play, require to be
annulled in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram
Lakhan Sharma’s case (supra).
19. Accordingly, the order dated 23-1-2004 (Annexure P-19) as affirmed
by the order dated 28-12-2018 (Annexure P-27), both, deserve to be
quashed and are hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in
service, if not completed the age of superannuation, and he is entitled
for all the consequential benefits except back-wages and for back-
wages, he will be at liberty to make representation before the
competent authority within six weeks from today, which shall be
considered and decided by the said authority, expeditiously, in
accordance with law. However, it is open for the respondents to
proceed with the enquiry afresh in accordance with law, from the
stage of evidence.

Page 13 of 13
(WPS No.5000/2019)
20. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
JUDGE
Soma