Page No.1 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 2026:CGHC:977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10889 of 2019 Om Pal Singh Deshwal S/o Late Bhullan Singh Aged About 69 Years Retd. Deputy Milk Commissioner, R/o A - 11 Priya Darshini Colony, Nonia Kerval, Chindwada ( M P ), District : Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Veterinary, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Department Of Veterinary, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Directorate Of Veterinary, Indrawati Bawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Milk Commissioner, Dairy Development, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 07.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 the Constitution of India mainly taking exception of order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure-P/01), by which, minor penalties under Rules 10 (iii) & (iv) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the “Rules of 1966”) have been imposed upon him and the appeals preferred against the said punishment order has also been dismissed vide orders dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure-P/02) & 16.09.2019 (Annexure-P/03). 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 Initially on 12.01.1972, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Milk Distribution Officer with the respondent and, on 01.05.1974, he was promoted to the post of Shift Manager and subsequently in the year 1985 as Manager in Government Milk Society, Rajanandgaon. On 03.01.2000, the services of the petitioner absorbed in the Department of Veterinary. However, during his posting as Manager in Government Milk Project, Rajnandgaon, on 02.08.1999, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice (Annexure-P/04) issued by the competent authority leveling charges of 5 financial irregularities against him, against which he filed reply dated 13.09.1999 (Annexure-P/06) explaining that no irregularities/miss-conduct has been committed by him and the enquiry proceedings be closed. 2.2 Thereafter, no major or minor enquiry proceeding was Page No.3 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 conducted in the matter and finally impugned order of punishment dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure-P/01) has been passed by the competent authority and direction for stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and order of recovery for an amount of Rs.76,712/- has been issued against the petitioner. Against which, he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and same also stood dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2009. After which, the petitioner preferred WPS-1656-2010 before this Court and same was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2018 with an observation that the order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure-P/02) is not sustainable and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner on its merits by dealing all the grounds and contentions raised by him. Thereafter, the appellant authority again rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure-P/03). Challenging the aforesaid punishment order dt 31.10.2000 (Annexure-P/01) and orders passed by the appellate authority 30.10.2009 (Annexure-P/02) & 16.09.2019 (Annexure-P/03), the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are absolutely unjustified in passing the impugned orders under the facts and circumstances of the present case. He vehemently argued that the procedure contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the Rules of 1966 for imposing minor penalties has not been Page No.4 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 complied with and full opportunity to defend his case has not been afforded to the petitioner. Mere issuance of show case notice would not amount to providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of Rule 16(1) of the Rules of 1966. As such, the impugned order imposing penalties of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and order of recovery for an amount of Rs.76,712/- issued against the petitioner dt. 31.10.2000, affirmed by the appellant authority vide orders dated 30.10.2009 & 16.09.2019, is bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and with authority of law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter Ajeet Singh Jat v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 . 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Rule 10(i) to (iv) of the Rules of 1966 provides for minor penalties which states as under: - “10. Penalties.—The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:— Minor penalties :— (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; 1 WPS-4980-2009, decided on 01.07.2021 Page No.5 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order; (iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;” 7. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 provides procedure for imposing minor penalties which states as under: - “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 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; (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; (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; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e) consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary. (1-a) xxx xxx xxx (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; Page No.6 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 (ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the commission, if any; (vi) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.” 8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that the punishment of withholding of increment which is minor penalty can be imposed on any Government servant only after informing him under Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966 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 after giving him a reasonable opportunity to make representation as he may wish to make against the proposal and after taking into consideration such representation, if any. Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966 prohibits imposition of any penalty without serving a charge- sheet on the delinquent and giving him reasonable opportunity to defend. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above aforesaid proposition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice dated 02.08.1999 (Annexure-P/04) and, to which, he filed his reply/explanation and request for closure of the enquiry proceedings, but thereafter nothing has been done and straightway order dated 31.10.2000 has been passed holding Page No.7 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 him guilty of the misconduct and imposing minor penalties: (i) stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and (ii) recovery for an amount of Rs.76,712/-, which is contrary to the principle of law laid down by this Court in the matter of Ajeet Singh Jat (supra). Mere issuance of show cause notice would not amount to proposal to take action against the delinquent and it would also not amount to serving of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966 and there is complete non-compliance of Rule 16(1)(b) of the said Rules, as no opinion has been recorded by the disciplinary authority that as to why inquiry is not necessary; taking the representation submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration. No enquiry was held and nothing further was done and straightway the order has been passed. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order imposing punishment passed on 31.10.2000 is in teeth of the provisions contained in Rule 16(1) of the Rules of 1966 holds water and accordingly, order dated 31.10.2000 deserves to be set aside. It is held accordingly. 10. Even otherwise, there is one more reason for not for not upholding the impugned orders. On the date of the order directing recovery of money i.e. 31.10.2000, the petitioner has already been inflicted with minor penalty of stoppage of 02 annual increments Page No.8 of 8 IN WPS-10889-2019 with cumulative effect for the said misconduct by the competent authority and, therefore, for one act of misconduct, a Government servant cannot be inflicted with two minor penalties simultaneously, one is withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and another is recovery of Rs.76,712/-, which fall within the meaning of ‘minor penalties’ under Rule 10(iii) and (iv) of the Rules of 1966. As such, imposition of two minor penalties for one act of misconduct cannot stand together and, as such, on this ground also the impugned order of punishment dated 31.10.2000 is liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of punishment dt. 31.10.2000 (Annexure-P/01), affirmed by the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure-P/02) & 16.09.2019 (Annexure-P/03), is hereby quashed/set side. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if