1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7714 of 2022 1 - R.B. Sahu S/o Jula Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years Working As Assist. Engineer, At R. E. S. Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director Panchayat, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For respondents No.2 & 4 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the instant matter. 10.2 This Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent authorities for quashing the impugned order, dt. 24/01/2020 issued by the respondent no. 02 (Annexure P/1. 2 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to provide the opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner in view of the principle of Natural Justice. 10.4 Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. 10.5 The cost of the petition may kindly be allowed.” 2) Mr. Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted on the post of Sub-Engineer at Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund and he was entrusted with various construction works and other works. He would further submit that a complaint was made against the petitioner by President of Janpad Panchayat Mahasamund making allegations of irregularities in the works. Respondent No.2 constituted a Committee of a six members vide order dated 10.06.2019 to conduct an inquiry. The said Committee submitted its report on 05.10.2019, wherein, allegations levelled against the petitioner were found proved and recovery of Rs.1,91,245/- was recommended. Pursuant to said order, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.09.2019. The petitioner filed reply to said show-cause notice and denied allegations. The respondent No.2 passed an order of recovery based on inquiry report on 24.01.2020. The petitioner has challenged said order by filing this petition. Mr. Kesharwani would submit that disciplinary action against the petitioner are governed by Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’). He would submit that as minor penalty (recovery) has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 dated 24.01.2020, therefore, respondent No.2 was under obligation to conduct an inquiry according to the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the Rules 3 of 1966. He would contend that the amount of recovery was pre- determined by the respondent authorities, therefore, also the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 24.01.2020 is bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Siemens Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 Lawsuit (SC) 1110 and the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India, reported in 1996 Lawsuit (SC) 1567. 3) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. Ms. Kaur would submit that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. She would further submit that a show-cause notice was issued before infliction of penalty which was a duly replied by the petitioner. She would contend that as order of recovery, which is a minor penalty has been inflicted, therefore, there was no need to conduct a full-fledged departmental inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. She would further contend that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4) Mr. Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Ms. Kaur. 5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Perusal of order Annexure P/1 dated 24.01.2020 would reveal that an order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner. According to the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966, order of recovery is a minor penalty. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 deals with the ‘procedure 4 for imposing minor penalties and same reads 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) 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 sub-rule 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.] (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; (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.” A bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that the authority concerned is required to conduct an inquiry according to 5 the provisions of Sub-rule 3 to 23 of the Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, while imposing minor penalty. 7) In the present case, after receiving a complaint, respondent No.2 constituted a six members Committee to conduct an inquiry and consequently, an inquiry was conducted, wherein, allegations were found proved. Respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice which was replied but the petitioner denied the allegations made therein and subsequently, order of recovery was passed. 8) In the matter of M/s. Siemens Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. Relevant para 10 is reproduced herein below : “10.Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause.” 9) In the present case, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein, the amount of recovery was pre-determined by the authority concerned and therefore, writ petition is maintainable and order passed by the respondent authorities is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6 10) In the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the charges are levelled against a Government servant and charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry should also be called for. Further, in the present case, respondent No.2 failed to comply with the provision of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 as no inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 was conducted. Relevant para 3 is reproduced herein below : “3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.” 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, order dated 24.01.2020 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with the Rules 14 & 16 of the Rules of 1966, if so advised. 12) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha