Chhattisgarh HC Rejects ASI’s Bid To Stop Fresh Inquiry Into Complaints Against Officers: Complainant Can’t Dictate Process

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), lodged complaints dated 12.02.2025 and 12.02.2026 alleging financial irregularities by certain officers.

An inquiry was initiated on 12.03.2026; the appointed Inquiry Officer recorded the petitioner’s statement, examined 12 witnesses and collected documents.

While the inquiry was nearing completion, the authority changed the Inquiry Officer by order dated 26.05.2026 and, by order dated 19.06.2026, directed a fresh inquiry before another officer.

The petitioner challenged those orders, alleging arbitrariness and victimisation; he also relied on his subsequent suspension on 20.08.2026, which he said followed his complaints

The Court stated that the conduct of an inquiry, including the appointment or change of an Inquiry Officer, lies within the competent authority’s administrative domain. A change of Inquiry Officer, by itself, does not justify writ-court interference unless a statutory provision has been violated or legally sustainable prejudice is demonstrated

The Court also held that a complainant cannot dictate or interfere with the procedure of a departmental internal inquiry. No statute or precedent was cited in the order.

The petitioner did not establish that the challenged orders breached any statutory provision or that changing the Inquiry Officer caused legally sustainable prejudice.

The allegations of mala fides and victimisation were unsupported by sufficient material. Since the petitioner was the complainant, he could not control the department’s choice of Inquiry Officer or the conduct of its internal inquiry. The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the orders

The orders dated 26.05.2026 and 19.06.2026 were not set aside