Disposed¶44

Jagarnath Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2026WPS/5892/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental appeal dismissed as time-barred; condonation of delay; delay of only 4 days held justifiable; no separate condonation application necessary; Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules; 30-day limitation; stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect; Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam; Appellate Authority directed to decide appeal afresh with hearing within 120 days; order dated 31.08.2021 quashed; writ petition disposed; NAFR (non-reportable); Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) quashed; Appellate Authority directed to decide the departmental appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing, within 120 days. ¶44

Jagarnath Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) quashed; Appellate Authority directed to decide the departmental appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing, within 120 days.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner with a delay of four days, without a separate application for condonation of delay, was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority as time-barred under Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules.

¶41

Court's answer

It is not strictly necessary to accompany a departmental appeal with a separate written application for condonation of delay.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Technicalities should not prevent justice; the four-day delay in filing the departmental appeal was justifiable and not an inordinate delay.

¶41

Key takeaways

The order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed; the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing.ratio¶42
The entire exercise of deciding the appeal afresh shall be completed within 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S) No. 5892 of 2021, Jagarnath Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., order dated 17.04.2026, NAFR): The petitioner, a Field Officer under Respondent No.2, was punished with stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect by order dated 19.02.2021 pursuant to a charge memo dated 22.05.2018. His departmental appeal filed before Respondent No.4 on 24.03.2021 was dismissed as time-barred, the prescribed period of limitation being 30 days under Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules. Held: (i) it is not strictly necessary to accompany a departmental appeal with a separate written application for condonation of delay; (ii) technicalities should not prevent justice, and a delay of four days in filing the appeal is justifiable and not inordinate. The order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) was quashed and the Appellate Authority directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing, completing the exercise within 120 days. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5892 of 2021

¶5

1 - Jagarnath Ram S/o Late Shri Kastoo Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Satyam Vihar Colony, Near Old Gurukul School, Changorabhatha, Raipura District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam, Grih Nirman Vyavsayik Parisar, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Secretary Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam, (T. R. I.) Bhawan, Second Floor, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - President Board Of Directors, Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam, Grih Nirman Vyavsayik Parisar, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For petitioner : Ms. Noori Khan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

17.04.2026

¶17

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

¶18

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶19

-2-

¶20

10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2.

¶21

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the punishment order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2.

¶22

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to quash the entire departmental inquiry initiated and also the enquiry report against the petitioner.

¶23

10.5 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

¶24

The facts in brief are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Field Officer under respondent No.2. The article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 22.05.2018, containing two charges as under :

¶25

// आरो�पपत्र //

¶26

"श्री�जगरना�थर�म, क्षे�त्रा�धि�का�र�, छ.ग. र�ज्यअं�त्य�वसा�य�साहका�र�विवत्त एव�विवका�साविनागम, नाय�र�यपु�रका�विवरुद्धविनाम्नालि"खि$तआर'पुअंधि�र'विपुत विकाय�ज�त�ह( :- आरो�पक्रमां�क� 01 - यहविकाआपुका�द्वा�र�जिज"�ध्यक्षेदरपुरका�य-रतद' व�हनाचा�"का/ का�विनायधिमत�कारणका1 का�य-व�ह�ह�त�नास्त�प्रस्त�तका1 गई, जिजसाम5 साम�लिचाततथ्य/ का�उल्"�$ नाह9 विकाय�गय�।आपुका�उक्तका< त्य विनागमकाम-चा�र�सा�व�विनायम 23 (अं) म5 काद�चारणका1 श्री�ण�का�अं�तग-त दण्डना�यह?। आरो�पक्रमां�क� 02- आपुका�द्वा�र�शा�सानाका�विनादAशा' का' नास्त�पुरप्रस्त�त नाह9 विकाय�ज�ना�का�का�रणविनायधिमत�कारणका1 का�य-व�ह�का�फ"स्वरुपुउक्त द'ना' व�हनाचा�"का/ का' विनायधिमत�कारणका�आद�शाज�र�हुआजिजसाका� फ"स्वरूपुविनायधिमतव�तनाम�नाम5 व�तनाका�भु�गत�नाहुआ।आपुका�उक्त का< त्यविनागमकाम-चा�र�सा�व�विनायम 23 (अं) म5 काद�चारणका1 श्री�ण�का� अं�तग-तदण्डना�यह?।"

¶27

The petitioner filed reply; the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and after full-fledged inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of two

¶28

¶29

increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 19.02.2021. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No.4 on 24.03.2021 and same has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal was preferred after expiry of prescribed period of limitation i.e. 30 days and same was in contravention to the provisions of Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules.

¶30

Ms. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no application for condonation of delay was moved along with memo of appeal but at the same time, the Appellate Authority should have taken a lenient view as there was delay of only 4 days. She would pray that order dated 31.08.2021 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to respondent No.4 to decide appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed by respondent No.2 on 19.02.2021 and an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against said order after expiry of period of limitation, therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules is reproduced herein below :

¶34

"न�यमि 28 :- दण्डपरो अप�ल

¶35

विनान्द�अंथव�आर् थ िHकाद�डका�प्रकारण/ का�विहसा�ब, दण्डदिदए ज�ना�ब�बतK प्रत्य�काआद�शाका�विवरूद्धआद�शाप्रसा�रणका1 वितलिथसा�

¶36

-4-

¶37

एकाम�हका�अं�तग-तअंना�साLचा� 07 का�अंना�सा�रअंपु�" द�यरका1 ज� साका�ग�एव�विना��-रिरतअंवधि�का�ब�दका'ईत�र�$ स्व�का�रनाह9 का1 ज�व�ग�।यदिदसामय�वधि�म5 अंपु�" प्र�धि�का�र�सा�प्रत्यक्षेभु5टसा�भुव

¶38

नाह' त' अंपु�" पु�ज�का< तड�कासा�भु�ज�ज�साका�ग�।"

¶39

As per Rule 28 of the Rules, an appeal can be preferred against order of penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority within a period of one month. A memo of appeal can be sent to the Appellate Authority through a registered post.

¶40

A perusal of the above-quoted provision would further make it clear that it is not strictly necessary to accompany a departmental appeal with a separate written application for condonation of delay. There was a delay of 4 days in filing departmental appeal.

¶41

It is a well-settled principle of law that technicalities should not prevent justice. Even in absence of separate application, the period of delay of 4 days caused in filing a departmental appeal appears to be justifiable. It is not a case where there was inordinate delay in filing appeal.

¶42

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

10.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition

¶44

is disposed of . Sd/-

¶45

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶46

Judge

¶47

Rekha

Jagarnath Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagarnath Ram 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

Malaram Vs Sukhram

Kheduram Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Honey Lalwani Vs Hidayatullah National Law University

Seema Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anju Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh