News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 57
Bilaspur, January 19, 2026 : High Court of Chhattisgarh has ordered the reinstatement of four police personnel who were dismissed from service over a 2014 incident involving the looting of weapons by Naxalites, bringing an end to disciplinary proceedings that stretched on for more than a decade.
In a judgment delivered on January 16, 2026, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal allowed a writ petition filed by four constables and assistant constables who had challenged their dismissal orders and the rejection of their departmental appeal. The court held that the entire disciplinary process stood vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory service rules governing common departmental enquiries, and that it would be unjust to order a fresh enquiry after such a long lapse of time.
The case arose from an incident on December 27, 2014, when the petitioners were deployed on security duty at the residence of a former MLA in Pakhanjur, a Naxal-affected area of Chhattisgarh. During their duty hours, armed Naxalites allegedly entered the premises and looted firearms and ammunition from the guard room. Following a preliminary enquiry, the police department initiated disciplinary proceedings against all four personnel, accusing them of gross negligence, violation of police regulations, and failure to follow prescribed security protocols.
An enquiry officer later found two of the three charges proved and, on June 4, 2016, the Superintendent of Police dismissed all four from service while also directing recovery of pecuniary loss. Their departmental appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police in March 2018, prompting the filing of the present writ petition.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the disciplinary action was fundamentally flawed because a common enquiry had been conducted without obtaining the mandatory approval of the competent authority under Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which apply to police personnel through the Police Regulations. They also pointed out that no presenting officer had been appointed during the enquiry. Importantly, the petitioners made it clear that they were not pressing for back wages.
The State, while defending the disciplinary action, contended that the petitioners had consented to a common enquiry and that, if the court were to set aside the punishment, liberty should be granted to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with the rules.
Rejecting this plea, the court reiterated that Rule 18 is mandatory and that the absence of a valid order authorising a common proceeding renders the entire enquiry without jurisdiction. Justice Agrawal relied on earlier decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court to hold that, although courts ordinarily remit matters for a fresh enquiry when procedural defects are found, such a course is not appropriate where an inordinate amount of time has passed.
Noting that the charge-sheet was issued in February 2015 and that nearly eleven years had elapsed since the initiation of the enquiry, the court held that reopening the matter would be neither fair nor in the interest of justice. Taking into account the petitioners’ concession that they were not seeking back wages, the High Court directed their reinstatement in service along with all consequential benefits except salary for the period they remained out of service. With this direction, the court allowed the writ petition.
Case Reference : WPS No. 8916 of 2019, Rakesh Kumar Sahu and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others; Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate, with Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondents: Shri Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate.
