Page No.1 of 5 IN WPS-4437-2020 2026:CGHC:1300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4437 of 2020 Mahendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri H.N. Verma Aged About 55 Years Ex - Asstt. Grade - Iii, At Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Bharatpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh R/o Uttary Ring Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Department of Agriculture, H.Q. Vikas Bhawan, Sector 19, Ground Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director (Agriculture) Sarguja Division, Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Korea, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Deputy Director (Agriculture) Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 08.01.2026 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN WPS-4437-2020 India is directed against order dated 25.07.2020 (Annexure-P/02), passed by the respondent No.02, affirming the order of punishment dated 20.06.2019 (annexire-P/01), passed by the respondent No.03/disciplinary authority, by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Section 10 (viii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the “Rules of 1966”). 2. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 The petitioner was subjected to charge-sheet dated 08.07.2016 alleging following charges as under: “vkjksi Øekad&1 ekuuh; iz/kkuea=h dk;kZy;] ekuuh; d`f"k ea=h] ekuuh; eq[; lfpo] lapkyd d`f"k ,oa vU; mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lh/ks i=kpkj djuk tks lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx N-x- ’kklu ds ifji= Øekad ,Q&2&1@2011@1@3 fnukad 29-03-2012 ,oa ifji= Ø- ,Q&02&02@2014@1&3 fnukad 06@02@2014 d s vUrxZr NRrhlx<+ flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 21 ds vUrxZr dnkpj.k gSA vkjksi Øekad&2 i=ksa esa vf’k"V] ve;kZfnr rFkk v’kksHkuh; Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx djuk tks flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 03 ds vUrxZr dnkpj.k gSA vkjksi Øekad&3 foHkkxh; vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks Mjkuk&/kedkuk] vi’kCnksa dk iz;ksx ,oa muds fo:) >wBh f’kdk;rsa djuk Jh oekZ dk LoHkko cu x;k gS] tks flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e&03 dk Li"V mYya?ku gSA vkjksi Øekad&4 foHkkxh; dk;kZsa ,oa nkf;Roks a dks NksM+dj xSj foHkkxh; dk;ksZa ,oa xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr jgrs gSaA” 2.2 The petitioner filed his reply dated 28.09.2016 denying all the Page No.3 of 5 IN WPS-4437-2020 charges levelled against him and, thereafter, enquiry proceedings were initiated against and finally when the enquiry officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved, the disciplinary authority passed impugned order of punishment on 20.06.2019 from dismissal of service of the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same also stood dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2020, affirming the order of punishment and the concurrent findings of the disciplinary authority. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was in great difficulty and stress due to non-grant of his seniority and non-grant of 6th pay benefit, he directly met higher authority, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a major misconduct in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chatrapal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 1 . Even otherwise, other remaining charges are also not of such a nature, for which a major penalty of dismissal of service is to be imposed upon the petitioner. As such, the impugned orders are bad, illegal and authority of law and same deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their 1 AIR 2024 SC 948 Page No.4 of 5 IN WPS-4437-2020 rival submission made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. A careful perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner, which has been found proved by the disciplinary authority, would show that the petitioner has been held guilty for making direct representation to the higher authorities including Hon’ble the Chief Minister of the State and, in which, most of the allegations are relating to non-grant of his seniority and non-grant of benefit of 6th Pay Commission and except raising allegations against Mr. SP Singh, the than SDO (Agriculture), Maendragarh and one Mr. AP Patel, no allegation has been levelled against any other officer. However, it is true that he has made direct correspondence to the higher officials of the State and made allegations of corruption in the office, but considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Chatrapal (supra) it cannot be held that the petitioner is guilty of a major misconduct for which punishment of dismissal from service is to be imposed. Indeed, the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner would fall under Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 i.e. “Unauthorised communication of information” and, for which, a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect would be sufficient. 7. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to modify the punishment order dated 20.06.2019, passed against the petitioner, from “dismissal from service” to “stoppage of two annual increments Page No.5 of 5 IN WPS-4437-2020 with non-cumulative effect”, for having committing minor misconduct instead of major misconduct. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment dated 20.06.2019 stands modified, as above. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service, if not already attend the age of superannuation. However, for the purpose of pay and allowance for the aforesaid period, he is at liberty to make application to the competent authority under Fundamental Rule 54- A, which may be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of said representation alongwith copy of this order. 8. This writ petition is allowed in part to the extend indicated herein above. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if