KANDARP BAHADUR SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010416652026 2026:CGHC:45291
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.29
11:13:18 +0530
WPS No. 7674 of 2026
Kandarp Bahadur Singh S/o Late Shri Keshar Bahadur Singh Aged
About 61 Years R/o Bunglow No. 248 Lotus Talpuri Phase 1,
Ruabandha, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home/ Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, P.S. And Post Rakhi,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director General Of Police (DGP) Police Headquarter (PHQ),
Sector 19, Police Station And Post Office, Rakhi Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 – Commandant, Office Of Commandant, 1st Battalion,
Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF), Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4 – Commandant, Office Of Commandant, 8th Battalion,
Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF), Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.

2
th
5 - Enquiry Officer, Commandant, 7 Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed
Force (CAF) Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
th
6 - Presenting Officer/ Deputy Commandant 7 Battallion,
Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate alongwith
Ms. Sundara Saha, Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is
confined to the prolonged departmental enquiry pending
against the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was
st
posted as Deputy Commandant in the 1 Battalion, Bhilai,
District Durg. On certain allegations, a show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 24.04.2024, to which he submitted
his reply denying the allegations. Thereafter, a charge-sheet
dated 25.11.2024 was issued by respondent No.1, and the
petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. However,
the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed
only on 07.04.2026, after a delay of more than 16 months from
the issuance of the charge-sheet. Relying upon the circular
dated 12.03.2013 issued by the Secretary, GAD, prescribing a

3
maximum period of one year for conclusion of departmental
inquiries, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude
the departmental inquiry within a stipulated period.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties would
submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already
been considered and decided by this Court vide order dated
10.07.2026 passed in WPS No.5073 of 2026 ( Vinay Kumar
Tripathi vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ) , wherein this
Court held as under:-
“5. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Premnath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of
Delhi and another, (2015) 16 SCC 415 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue of
prolonged departmental enquiry has in paragraph 26
to 28 has held as under :-
“26. Time and again, this Court has emphasized
that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that
the departmental inquiry initiated against the
delinquent employee is concluded within the
shortest possible time by taking priority
measures. In cases where the delinquent is
placed under suspension during the pendency
of such inquiry then it becomes all the more

4
imperative for the employer to ensure that the
inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time
to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice
to the rights of the delinquent employee.
27. As a matter of experience, we often notice
that after completion of the inquiry, the issue
involved therein does not come to an end
because if the findings of the inquiry
proceedings have gone against the delinquent
employee, he invariably pursues the issue in
Court to ventilate his grievance, which again
consumes time for its final conclusion.
28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the
considered opinion that every employer
(whether State or private) must make sincere
endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry
proceedings once initiated against the
delinquent employee within a reasonable time
by giving priority to such proceedings and as far
as possible it should be concluded within six
months as an outer limit. Where it is not
possible for the employer to conclude due to
certain unavoidable causes arising in the
proceedings within the time frame then efforts
should be made to conclude within reasonably

5
extended period depending upon the cause and
the nature of inquiry but not more than a year. ”
6. Given the authoritative decision by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and also taking into consideration
the substantial period of three years time that have
lapsed after the date of issuance of charge sheet,
this Court is of the opinion that writ petition can be
disposed of directing the respondents to make all
endeavours to conclude the departmental enquiry
within the further period of 4 months time starting
from today failing which the respondents are directed
to ensure taking appropriate steps in the light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Premnath Bali (Supra) to drop the proceedings in
case if they are unable to proceed with the
departmental enquiry for justifiable reasons and in
case if there are any bonafide, genuine and cogent
reasons available on the administrative side then
also appropriate measures should be taken to
ensure that departmental enquiry is expedited as
early as possible.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
4. In view of the above and having considered the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone

6
through the materials available on record, it is evident that the
facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPS No.
5073 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a
view other than what has been taken in the aforesaid writ
petition.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the
order dated 10.07.2026 passed in WPS No. 5073 of 2026 .
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
$. Bhilwar