Chhattarpal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) —
Re-affirmation of the “Substantial-Compliance / No-Prejudice” Doctrine in Departmental Enquiries

1. Introduction

The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Chhattrapal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 CGHC 25555-DB) examined whether alleged procedural lapses in a police departmental enquiry—especially (a) non-communication of the right to engage a defence assistant, and (b) the Inquiry Officer putting questions to witnesses—vitiate the entire proceedings. The appellant, a police constable dismissed in 2010 for corruption and dereliction of duty, challenged the Single Judge’s refusal to interfere with his dismissal. The Bench eventually dismissed the intra-court appeal, condoning delay but affirming the departmental action.

Key Issues Framed by the Court

1. Whether failure to explicitly inform the delinquent of his right to a defence assistant under Rule 14(8) of the C.G. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, invalidates the enquiry.
2. Whether the Inquiry Officer’s act of questioning or “cross-examining” witnesses renders him a prosecutor and vitiates proceedings.
3. The scope of judicial review over departmental fact-finding—when can a High Court interfere?

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Delay Condoned: 375-day delay in filing the appeal condoned for “sufficient cause”.
• Appeal Dismissed: The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge committed no error. The departmental enquiry substantially complied with the Rules; no prejudice was proved; therefore, the dismissal order stands.
• Core Holding (New/Restated Principle): In disciplinary proceedings, procedural infractions that are not of a fundamental nature will not vitiate the enquiry unless the delinquent demonstrates actual prejudice. Non-communication of the right to a defence assistant, and the Inquiry Officer posing clarificatory questions, are curable defects when the overall enquiry reflects substantial compliance and fair play.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora (2001) 6 SCC 392 — Distinguishes between substantive and procedural rules; introduces test of prejudice. Forms the backbone of the Bench’s reasoning.
• Mulchandani Electrical & Radio Industries v. Workmen (1975) 4 SCC 731 — Authority that an Inquiry Officer may question witnesses; relied upon to reject “prosecutor-judge” argument.
• Pravin Kumar v. Union of India (2020) 9 SCC 471 — Three-Judge Bench confirms that Inquiry Officers can directly question witnesses; no violation of nemo judex in causa sua.
• Union of India v. Dilip Paul (2023 SCC Online SC 1423)
• Bhagat Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh (1983) 2 SCC 442 — Cited by appellant; Bench differentiates, emphasising absence of demand for defence assistance & lack of prejudice.
• Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 — requirement to record reasons; Court found that reasons were adequate.
• Internal High Court precedent: Anita Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh 2019 Lab IC (NOC) 106 (CHH) — distinguished on facts.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Employed

1. Substantial Compliance vs. Fundamental Breach
   • Rules of natural justice are flexible. Only fundamental procedural breaches (e.g., total denial of hearing) are fatal per Harendra Arora.
   • Non-communication of right to defence assistant, though desirable, was not fundamental here because the appellant was a trained police officer who cross-examined witnesses himself and never sought such assistance.
2. Test of Prejudice
   • Court applied “had the rule been complied with, would the outcome likely change?”
   • No prejudice shown: appellant grasped procedure, cross-examined witnesses, produced documents.
3. Inquiry Officer’s Role
   • Clarificatory questions permissible under Evidence Act section 165 analogy.
   • Citing Mulchandani and Pravin Kumar, Inquiry Officer’s conduct did not fuse adjudicatory & prosecutorial roles.
4. Judicial Review Limits
   • High Court not an appellate fact-finding body (S. Sree Rama Rao; Chitra Venkata Rao).
   • Provided there is “some evidence”, adequacy cannot be re-assessed.

3.3 Anticipated Impact of the Judgment

• Standard-setting for Chhattisgarh Police enquiries: Departments may rely on this authority to defend enquiries where minor procedural lapses occurred, provided no prejudice is demonstrable.
• Higher threshold for employees to invalidate proceedings: Petitioners must now concretely show prejudice, not merely point to technical deviations.
• Reinforces flexibility in Inquiry Officer’s involvement: Officers may ask clarificatory questions without fear of proceedings being invalidated, so long as fairness persists.
• Guides Single Judges and Tribunals: Encourages deference to departmental findings where “some evidence” exists; curtails re-appreciation of facts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Compliance

When the core purpose of a rule is met even if literal requirements are not fully observed.

Test of Prejudice

The enquiry is invalid only if the procedural lapse actually hurt the delinquent’s defence or affected the outcome.

Inquiry Officer

Neutral fact-finder in departmental proceedings; akin to a judge but allowed to ask clarifying questions.

“Some Evidence” Rule

Judicial review upholds findings if there is any reasonable evidence supporting them, without probing adequacy.

Intra-court Appeal (Writ Appeal)

Appeal from a Single Judge’s decision to a Division Bench within the same High Court.

5. Conclusion

The Division Bench has crystallised an important practical rule in public-employment law within Chhattisgarh: minor procedural lapses in departmental enquiries do not ipso facto nullify disciplinary action; the delinquent must show actual prejudice, and courts will not re-appraise evidence so long as “some evidence” exists.

By upholding the dismissal of a constable accused of corruption and absence from duty, despite the Inquiry Officer’s active questioning and absence of communicated defence assistance, the Court reinforces administrative efficiency while safeguarding fairness through the prejudice standard. Future litigants and disciplinary authorities must therefore focus less on technical defects and more on demonstrable injustice or bias.