1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.5.2009 (Annexure P-2) and also to the order dated 8.3.2011 (Annexure P-1).

2. Vide Annexure P-2 the Petitioner has been inflicted with an order of punishment in the nature of minor punishment under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 whereby the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed against the Petitioner. Against the said order the Petitioner preferred an appeal which stood rejected by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-1.

3. The Petitioner in the instant case was placed under suspension on 20.4.2007 and a charge-sheet was also issued on 31.5.2007. However, as there was no progress made subsequently on the departmental enquiry initiated and the Petitioner was kept under suspension, he filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No. 3614 of 2008. The said writ petition stood disposed of on 11.7.2008 at the instance of the learned State Counsel who had given an undertaking that if an enquiry has been initiated against the Petitioner the same shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the Respondents in an arbitrary and illegal manner, dropping the departmental enquiry straightaway passed an order of minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect which was subjected to appeal and the Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. Contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order of punishment as also the order of Appellate Authority are not sustainable as there is no basis whatsoever available with the Respondents to hold the Petitioner guilty for alleged misconduct. He further submitted that the two orders are also not sustainable for the simple reason that the departmental enquiry initiated at the first instance itself was not concluded and without which the authorities could not have reached to the conclusion holding the Petitioner guilty of misconduct. It was also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order of Disciplinary Authority also is not a speaking order as it does not reflect as to what was the basis for the order of punishment to be passed. He further submitted that there was also no preliminary enquiry conducted at any point of time which could have also been a basis on which the order of punishment could have been sustained. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the department at the first instance when they found that the charges were serious in nature and they had contemplated departmental enquiry were duty bound to ensure that the departmental enquiry is concluded and a logical conclusion would had been arrived at holding the Petitioner guilty of misconduct; in the absence of which the order of punishment is not sustainable.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India & Ors., 2001 (9) SCC 180 and State of Bihar & Anr. v. Lakshmi Shankar Prasad, 2002 (10) SCC 351, wherein in the both the cases it has been envisaged that even if the authorities concerned intend to impose minor punishment there has to be reasons to be recorded and moreover when the charges levelled against an employee being factual in nature and further there being a categorical denial on the part of the delinquent employee so far as these factual averments are concerned, an enquiry would be must before imposing the punishment. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Kapoor Singh Parihar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2014 LawSuit (MP) 196, decided on 6.3.2014 in W.P. No. 2760 of 2013.

6. Learned Counsel for the State on the contrary opposing the petition submits that a plain perusa