Ignorance of Rule 27 of Rules of 1966 allows the petitioner to file an appeal against his departmental inquiry.
Chhattisgarh High court in the case of Atul Prakash Lader vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ordered that ignorance of Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules (Rules of 1966) while deciding the appeal against his departmental inquiry allows him to again file the appeal.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Reserved Inspector and one of his increments was suspended in a regular departmental proceeding held against him with cumulative effect by order dated 4/9/2000.
After the above order was passed, the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority in accordance with Regulation 262 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. The learned appellate authority in a brief and cryptic order dismissed the appeal by order dated 24/7/2004. After that, the petitioner filed a mercy petition to which the competent authority also dismissed the mercy appeal by order dated 30/9/2004. Now, the appellate order and order in mercy appeal have been called in question by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
The Petitioner submitted that though the petitioner's services are governed by Regulation 262 of the Police Regulations, but yet aid and assistance of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1966') can be taken and it would be applicable and therefore, appeal ought to have been decided in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 and as such, unreasoned and cryptic order passed the appellate authority is liable to be set aside.
Rule 27 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services 1966 basically describes the rules that must be given consideration while dealing with an appeal case. The respondent side in response to this contention submitted that the petitioner's appeal has rightly been dismissed and no interference is called for in this writ petition preferred by the petitioner.
Regulation 262 of police regulation states that an officer who thinks that any wrong & illegal order is passed against can appeal against such order to the authority immediately superior to the officer who passed the order of punishment and if the appeal is from an officer of the rank of Inspector or of an equivalent rank.
One thing that the court observed that Regulations 262 of the police regulation is silent about the procedure to be followed while considering the appeal, but how the appeal has to be decided and whether aid and assistance can be taken from the provisions contained in the Rules 1966.
The court also referred to the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Shrikishan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors  where it was directed by the court that the applicability of the Control and Appeal Rules is not altogether excluded, where the Police Regulations are silent the provision of Control and Appeal Rules would apply in departmental inquiries against subordinate police staff.
Another observation made by the Court was that the order dated 4/09/2000 was a major penalty as held in the judgment of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and as such the appellate authority was required to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules 1966 and could have clearly discussed after holding that the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1966 has been complied with.
However, the appellate authority on 24.7.2004 only mentioned the charges leveled against the petitioner and only in one paragraph, dismissed the appeal holding that appeal is within limitation, it has been examined and no case is made out for interference in the appeal. The court pointed out that such a procedure adopted by learned appellate authority is contrary to clause (a) to (c) of Rule 27 of the Rules 1966.
The court further referred to judgments such as Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao, Deokinandan Sharma v. Union of India and others and at last Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.
After analyzing the judgment of the above cases and the facts of the current case and the order of appellate authority the court gave its judgment that the appellate authority neither considered clause (a) to (c) of Rule 27 of the Rules 1966 nor recorded any reasons or even did not address the contentions raised by the petitioner which was totally impermissible way of disposing of the appeal particularly in light of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966. Continuing this observation the court further said that the order dated 24/7/2004 and order dated 30/9/2004 passed by the competent authority both are hereby set aside.
The court further directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and will decide the same after hearing the petitioner and another side, strictly in accordance with the law.
Also, the court directed the Director-General of Police is directed to ensure that appeal is decided within the time limit indicated hereinabove.
 1985 MPLJ 516
 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504
 (2008) 3 SCC 469
 (2001) 5 SCC 340
 (2006) 4 SCC 713