Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Chhote Lal Dahire – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3247 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Baghel
For the Respondents:Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A., Ms. Shubhi Rusia, Advocate
Disciplinary penalties must adhere to procedural requirements, including conducting an inquiry prior to penalties to ensure fairness.
Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966 - Rules 10 and 16 - Procedure for imposing minor penalties - Disciplinary authority imposed penalty without inquiry and proper procedure - The authority did not follow the laid down procedure for issuing a minor penalty. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
(B) Rule 16 prescribes the requirement of an inquiry prior to imposing penalties specified under Rule 10 - Non-compliance leads to quashing of disciplinary action. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer, was penalized without an inquiry for failing to prepare a proper project report.
Findings of Court:
The penalty imposed was not in accordance with the required procedural rules.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the penalty imposed was valid due to lack of inquiry as per established rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that substantial procedural violations occurred in the imposition of penalties, leading to the decision's annulment.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks relief via writ to quash penalty imposed without inquiry. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court reviews disciplinary procedures and requirements for imposing penalties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. inquiry process was not followed; order quashed as unlawful. (Para 9 , 10) |
Order on Board
07.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the Order dated 08.06.2017, Passed by Respondent No. 1 bearing Order No. F 1-30/22-1/2017 from the office of respondent no.1.
10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 08.06.2017, Passed by Respondent No. 1 bearing Order No. F 1-30/22- 1/2017 from the office of respondent no.1 by issuance of writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs.
10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”
2. Mr. Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time in the year 2012-13, the petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Engineer, and he was posted as Sub- Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer in Rural Engineering Services, Sub-Division Kawardha, District-Kabirdham (C.G.). He would further submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.04.2016 to the effect that the petitioner failed to prepare a proper project report of the damaged bridge and catchment area. He would contend that the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations. He would further contend that without holding any inquiry and without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the CCA Rules, 1966’), a penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 08.06.2017. He would also contend that the disciplinary authority inflicted a minor penalty according to the provisions of Rule 10(iv) of the CCA Rules,1966 but the authority was under an obligation to conduct an inquiry according to Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966. He would further argue that as no article of charge was issued; no inquiry was conducted and no satisfaction was recorded according to the provisions of Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966, the order is bad in law.
3. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Baghel. She would submit that three show cause notices were issued on different dates to the petitioner and a reply was filed. She would further submit that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing and thereafter, the order impugned was passed. She would contend that as a minor penalty was inflicted, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and the order impugned is within the four corners of the CCA Rules, 1966.
4. Ms. Rusia, Advocate appearing for the respondent/PSC would support the contentions made by Ms. Shukla.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record.
6. A perusal of the documents would show that vide order impugned dated 08.06.2017, a penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was issued by respondent No.1/disciplinary authority without holding any departmental inquiry. It appears that the article of charge was also not issued.
7. Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties and the same is reproduced herein below:-
“16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. (1)Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule
10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after-
(a)informing the Government s
