Section 420 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, grants the State Government overriding power to demand punishment, suspension, or dismissal of a municipal officer, thereby empowering the State Government to issue charge-memos and initiate disciplinary proceedings notwithstanding other provisions regarding appointing authorities.

Order on Board

13/04/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue writ/ writs in the nature of

mandamus and quashed/ set aside the

charge sheet dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P 1) issued by the State government in the

interest of justice.

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue writ/ writs in the nature of

mandamus and directed to respondent

authority to provide all relevant documents to

the petitioner.

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to grant any other relief, as it may

deem fit and just.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an employee of

Respondent No. 4 and was posted as Assistant Engineer. While he

was posted as Assistant Engineer with Respondent No. 4, he was put

under suspension vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) levelling

certain allegation. Petitioner was served with a charge memo thereafter

on 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) by the State Government. Issuance of

charge-memo was put to challenge in this writ petition on the ground

that the State Government is not the appointing authority nor the

disciplinary authority and therefore State Government is having no

jurisdiction to issue charge-memo and to direct to conduct necessary

proceedings. He would further submit that Section 58 of the

Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”)

provides for Appointment and Conditions of Service of Corporation

Officers and servants, under sub-section 1 of Section 58 State

Government has formulated rules governing the services of the

officers/ employees of the Municipal Corporation as Chhattisgarh

Municipal Corporation (Appointment Condition of Service of Officers

and Servants) Rules 2018 (for short, the Rules of 2018) (for short

“Rules of 2018”). Referring to Rule 2(ख) he would submit that in the

Rules of 2018 the appointing authority has been specified as Mayor-in Council or the Commissioner. He would also contend that under

Section 60 of the Act of 1956 it specifically provides for Discharge and

Infliction of penalties, and for imposing punishment on the officers and

the servants of the Municipal Corporation it is mentioned that no

authority subordinate to the authority who makes the appointment. In

the case at hand, the Commissioner and the Mayor-in-Council would

be the competent authority to impose punishment and therefore the

charge-memo ought to have been by the authority who has been

mentioned to be an authority to impose penalty. He would also refer

sub-section 6 of Section 60 of the Act of 1956 to submit that for

inflicting major penalty of reduction in rank, removal from service and

dismissal from service, it is mentioned as Mayor-in-Council to impose

such penalty with the previous consultation with the State Government/

Divisional Commissioner. In the scheme of provisions of the Act of

1956 and the Rules of 2018, State Government has not been

mentioned to be an authority to be appointing authority or disciplinary

authority and therefore issuance of charge-memo by Respondent No. 1

is not sustainable.

3. Learned counsel for State vehemently oppose the submission of

learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner has

been appointed by the order of Respondent No. 1 and therefore

Respondent No. 1 would be an authority for issuance of charge-memo

and to act as a disciplinary authority. Referring to Rule 9 of the

Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) R