Allowed¶49

Chhote Lal Dahire v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Minor penalty – Stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025WPS/3247/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition (S) No. 3247 of 2017, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 07.07.2025 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey. Keywords: Rule 16 CCA Rules 1966; Rule 16(1)(b); Rule 10(iv) minor penalty; stoppage of two increments non-cumulative effect; departmental inquiry; article of charge; supply of documents; examination of witnesses; show cause notice dated 11.04.2016; Sub-Engineer Rural Engineering Services Kawardha Kabirdham; disciplinary proceedings; natural justice; order dated 08.06.2017 quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1 imposing stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect (Annexure P/1) is quashed, with consequences to follow. ¶49

Chhote Lal Dahire Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned order dated 08.06.2017 passed by respondent No.1 imposing stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect (Annexure P/1) is quashed, with consequences to follow.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner by order dated 08.06.2017 without conducting an inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 (and without recording satisfaction under Rule 16(1)(b)) is valid. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

Under Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 1966, an order imposing a penalty specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall not be made except after holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had raised a specific ground that no inquiry was conducted according to Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966, and the State in its return did not rebut that ground.

¶47

Key takeaways

No article of charge was issued to the petitioner, the documents were not provided, the witnesses were not examined, and the penalty was imposed without any departmental inquiry; consequently, the procedure contemplated in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 was not followed at all, and the order dated 08.06.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1 stands quashed, with consequences to follow.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Minor penalty — Stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect — Penalty imposed on a Sub-Engineer by respondent No.1 vide order dated 08.06.2017 (Annexure P/1) without issuing any article of charge, without providing documents, without examining witnesses and without holding any departmental inquiry — Rule 16(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 requires that penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 not be imposed except after informing the Government servant, considering his representation, recording findings, and, where the disciplinary authority deems it necessary, holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 — Petitioner specifically pleaded non-compliance with Rule 16 and the State's return did not rebut the ground — Procedure contemplated in Rule 16 not followed at all — Impugned order quashed; consequences to follow; writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3247 of 2017

¶5

1 - Chhote Lal Dahire S/o Late N. L. Dahire, Aged About 60 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, P. O. Mangla, Tahsil And District REKHA Digitallysigned byBilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh SINGH REKHA SINGH ... Petitioner(s)

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Development Commissioner Office, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For respondent No.4/PSC: Ms. Shubhi Rusia, Advocate holding the brief of Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

07.07.2025

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶16

“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.

¶17

10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶18

-2-

¶19

quash the Order dated 08.06.2017, Passed by Respondent No. 1 bearing Order No. F 1-30/221/2017 from the office of respondent no.1 by issuance of writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs.

¶20

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.”

¶21

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 SubEngineer/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

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Ms. Rusia, Advocate appearing for the respondent/PSC would support the contentions made by Ms. Shukla.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶27

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.

¶28

Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties and the same is reproduced herein

¶29

-4-

¶30

below:-

¶31

“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-

¶32

(a)informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

¶33

(b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub- rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

¶34

(c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;

¶35

(d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

¶36

(e)consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary.

¶37

[(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under clause (a) of that subrule to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years of to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.] [Inserted by Notification No. C-6-30-92-3-I, dated 22-6-1992.]

¶38

(2)The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-

¶39

(i)a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him;

¶40

(ii)a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii)his representation, if any;

¶41

(iv)the evidence produced during the inquiry;

¶42

(v)the advice of the commission, if /any;

¶43

¶44

(vi)the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

¶45

(vii)the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.

¶46

Rule 16(1)(b) clearly states that the order imposing penalty specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall not be made except after holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 and further, in every case where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.

¶47

In the present case, the petitioner has raised a specific ground that no inquiry was conducted according to Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966. The State in its return has not rebutted the grounds raised by the petitioner.

¶48

10.A perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition and the return would make it clear that no article of charge was issued to the petitioner; the documents were not provided; the witnesses were not examined to prove the guilt of the petitioner, and the penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority, thus, the procedure contemplated in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 was not followed at all, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure P/1) dated 08.06.2017 is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow.

¶49

11.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.

¶50

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶51

Rekha

Chhote Lal Dahire v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhote Lal Dahire v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praduman Patre Vs Smt. Sushila Patre

Narayan Lal Khobragade Vs Gayatri Sharma

Khileshwar Sinha Vs Rehana Begam @ Ashu

Amrika Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prahlad Kumar Suktel Vs State of Chhattisgarh