1 WPS No. 10268 of 2019 CGHC010417782019 2026:CGHC:32375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10268 of 2019  Suryabhawan Singh Raj S/o Shri Mangal Singh Raj, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Makhanupur Post Pali, P/s Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Civil And Revenew District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Revenue Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28.07.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority / Respondent No.2 herein, whereby the appeal of ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 WPS No. 10268 of 2019 the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by Respondent No.3 herein dismissing the services of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned orders are liable to be dismissed as the Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity “the Rules of 1966”) has not been complied with. 3. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned orders and submit that the Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of misconduct against which he had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Korba/respondent No.2 herein and Collector, Korba, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and five times he has been suspended and he has also been awarded with penalty for no work no pay for 24 3 WPS No. 10268 of 2019 months and, on that account, proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner herein. 6. The manner to consider the appeal has been mentioned in Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966, therefore, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966, which states as under:- “27(2). In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider– (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders - (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty, or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances or the case.” 7. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Appellate Authority has not considered the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied with or not; whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on 4 WPS No. 10268 of 2019 the record and whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and dismissed the appeal. As such, the appeal of the petitioner herein was not considered in accordance with the Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P/1) as well as 14.10.2019 (Annexure P/4) are liable to be and is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Korba /Appellate Authority / Respondent No.2 herein for hearing and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunities to the parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit