1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3709 of 2023 1 - B. L. Singhal (Bajrang Lal Singhal) S/o Shri Omkarmal Singhal Aged About 53 Years Posted As Sub Engineer, Office Of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh R/o A Mukut Nagar House No. 21, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ...Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, North Block Sector 19, Nirman Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Engineer In Chief, Rural And Engineering Development Department Services, Vikas Bhawan , Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhabhara District - Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Tilda, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner may be called for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the impugned order dated 16/05/2023 (ANNEXURE P/01) and charges levelled against the petitioner may kindly be set aside/quashed and petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 10.3. That, respondents may be directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the gradation list of Rural Engineering Services department. 10.4. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Division, Raigarh. He is a regularly appointed Government servant and has been discharging his duties in the Public Works Department without any blemish or allegation relating to his work or conduct in the said department. Prior to his present posting in the Public Works Department, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 on the post of Sub Engineer at Janpad Panchayat Dhabra, District Janjgir-Champa, under the Department of Rural Engineering Services (RES). It has been alleged by the respondents that the 3 petitioner submitted his joining on 16.08.2008 at Janpad Panchayat Dhabra and thereafter, upon transfer, submitted his joining at Janpad Panchayat Tilda on 30.08.2010, and that he continued to receive salary from Janpad Panchayat Tilda till September, 2011. The petitioner has categorically denied these allegations and has consistently maintained that he neither joined duties nor drew any salary from the Rural Engineering Services Department at any point of time. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when he came to know about the alleged appointment in the Rural Engineering Services Department, he immediately approached the concerned authorities to clarify that he had been shown appointed in two different departments. The petitioner only appeared before the authorities for the limited purpose of furnishing information and clarification regarding the anomaly. However, the Rural Engineering Services Department misconstrued such appearance as joining of service, despite the petitioner clearly opting to continue in the Public Works Department, where he thereafter continued to serve at Raigarh. In accordance with the applicable government rules, the petitioner submitted his resignation from the post under Janpad Panchayat Dhabra on 16.11.2008 within one month, along with one month’s salary. Despite submission of the resignation, his name was not deleted from the gradation list of the Rural Engineering Services Department. Subsequently, in the year 2010, the petitioner was unexpectedly informed that he had been transferred to Janpad 4 Panchayat Tilda. Thereupon, the petitioner personally visited Janpad Panchayat Tilda on 01.09.2010, reiterated that he had already resigned from the post at Dhabra, and again submitted his resignation with a request to forward the same to the higher authorities for appropriate action. The petitioner made repeated efforts to ensure deletion of his name from the gradation list of the Rural Engineering Services Department. Instead of addressing the grievance, the departmental officials advised the petitioner to submit a medical leave application, stating that it would resolve the issue. Acting on such advice, the petitioner submitted a medical leave application; however, even thereafter, his name continued to appear in the gradation list and his resignation was never formally accepted. Left with no alternative, the petitioner addressed a detailed representation dated 17.07.2014 directly to the Commissioner/Chief Engineer, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Raipur, enclosing copies of earlier representations and requesting removal of his name from the gradation list. Despite this, no corrective steps were taken by the department. The petitioner had no interaction with the Rural Engineering Services Department from 17.09.2011 till 20.06.2021. To his utter surprise, on 20.06.2021, he was informed that his name was still reflecting in the gradation list, with reference to a departmental letter dated 18.02.2021. Through the said letter, the petitioner also came to know that he was being shown as “non- working” by the department. Thereafter, the petitioner again 5 approached the authorities and was instructed to route his representation through Janpad Panchayat Tilda instead of Janpad Panchayat Malkharod, after completing certain formalities, with the assurance that his name would then be deleted from the gradation list. The petitioner continued to follow the instructions issued by the department, though the advice remained ambiguous and inconsistent. Ultimately, after years of administrative inaction and confusion created by the respondents themselves, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 09.01.2023 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, alleging that the petitioner had worked in two different departments simultaneously, which was sought to be treated as a criminal act. The petitioner asserts that the entire situation has arisen solely due to the arbitrary and negligent conduct of the respondent department in not accepting his resignation and not correcting the gradation list despite repeated representations. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid show cause notice before this Court by filing WPS No. 1176/2023. The said petition was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it was premature. This Court, relying upon the statement made by the State that due process under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 would be followed, disposed of the writ petition on 10.02.2023. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 06.02.2023 to the show cause notice, explaining his entire stand and also apprising the authorities about the pendency and disposal of the 6 writ petition. However, in complete disregard of the statutory rules and the assurance given before this Court, the Engineer-in-Chief, without initiating any departmental enquiry, imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 16.05.2023, solely on the basis of the reply to the show cause notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of dismissal dated 16.05.2023 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, as it imposes a major penalty without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is contended that dismissal from service being a major penalty under Rule 10, could not have been imposed without holding a regular departmental enquiry, framing of charges, supply of documents, and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner never admitted the allegations levelled against him and had categorically denied having worked or drawn salary from two departments simultaneously. In such circumstances, the respondents were legally bound to establish the alleged misconduct through documentary and oral evidence in a full- fledged enquiry. The impugned action of relying solely on the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice and straightaway dismissing him from service reflects a predetermined and biased approach. It is further submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief acted in complete derogation of the statement made by the State before 7 this Court in WPS No. 1176/2023, wherein it was assured that due process under the CCA Rules would be followed. The impugned order thus not only violates statutory service rules but also undermines the sanctity of the proceedings before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged misconduct does not relate to discharge of duties in the Public Works Department, where the petitioner has served continuously since 2008 without any complaint. The allegation of dual employment is a disputed question of fact, arising primarily due to the failure of the Rural Engineering Services Department to accept the petitioner’s resignation and correct the gradation list despite repeated representations. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the administrative lapses of the respondent department. The petitioner’s consistent conduct of submitting resignations, representations and seeking removal of his name from the gradation list clearly demonstrates absence of any mens rea or misconduct on his part. The respondents, instead of rectifying their own errors, have chosen to victimise the petitioner by imposing the harshest penalty in a mechanical and mala fide manner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice, is contrary to settled canons of service jurisprudence, and amounts to gross abuse of power. It is urged that no person, howsoever high in rank, is above the rule of law, and the arbitrary action of the Engineer-in- 8 Chief deserves to be interfered with by this Court to prevent miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and does not disclose any infringement of a legal right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts and made misrepresentations, disentitling him from any equitable relief. It is further submitted that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory alternative remedy under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 against the impugned order imposing a major penalty, and without exhausting the said remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned State Counsel submits that official records clearly establish that the petitioner was simultaneously working as a Sub Engineer in the Public Works Department and in the Rural Engineering Services Department, and had drawn salary from both departments, which constitutes serious misconduct in violation of Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. It is contended that the petitioner failed to resign from the Public Works Department before joining the Rural Engineering Services Department, and his claim regarding resignation and non-receipt of salary is false and unsupported by record. After due consideration of the petitioner’s reply and 9 material on record, the competent authority rightly passed the impugned order of removal under Rule 10(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Learned State Counsel submits that the impugned order is legal, proper and passed in accordance with law, and no perversity, procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice is made out. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the impugned order dated 16.05.2023. 6. The controversy essentially revolves around the legality of the order by which the petitioner has been visited with the major penalty of dismissal from service. From a perusal of the record, it is quite vivid and manifest that though a show cause notice dated 09.01.2023 was issued to the petitioner, no regular departmental enquiry was ever initiated against him. It is not in dispute that no formal charge-sheet was framed, no disciplinary authority was appointed for conducting an enquiry, no enquiry officer was designated and no presenting officer was appointed. The entire action culminating in the dismissal of the petitioner is based solely upon the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 7. It is well settled in service jurisprudence that dismissal from service is a major penalty within the meaning of Rule 10 of the 10 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The imposition of such a major penalty necessarily mandates strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the said Rules. The said procedure clearly envisages issuance of a charge-sheet, framing of definite charges, supply of relied upon documents, granting opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his defence, leading of evidence, cross- examination of witnesses and conclusion of a regular departmental enquiry before any adverse order can be passed. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were seriously disputed and denied by him. The petitioner never admitted that he worked in two departments simultaneously or that he drew salary from two departments at the same time. Once the allegations were controverted, the respondents were under a statutory obligation to establish the alleged misconduct through a properly constituted departmental enquiry. Merely issuing a show cause notice and straightaway imposing the penalty of dismissal, without following the due process of law, is wholly impermissible. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 541 has held as under : “19. In this background, we are of the firm view that the termination of the services of the appellant without holding disciplinary enquiry was totally unjustified and dehors the requirements 11 of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the hypertechnical ground that the minutes of 26th meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June, 2018 had not been placed on record. 20. As a consequence, we pass the following directions:— (i) The impugned judgments dated 4th August, 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside. (ii) The order dated 19th May, 2022 whereby, the services of the appellant on the post of Registrar of the Institute were terminated is also declared to be illegal and as a consequence, the same is quashed and set aside. (iii) That the appellant shall forthwith be reinstated on the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. (iv) The respondent-Institute is left at liberty to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per law, if so desired.” 9. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the manner 12 contemplated under the CCA Rules. No documents were supplied, no evidence was led, and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to controvert the material relied upon by the department. The procedure adopted by the respondents falls foul of the settled principles governing disciplinary proceedings. 10. This Court also takes note of the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the State had specifically submitted before this Court that due process as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 would be followed. However, contrary to the said assurance, the competent authority proceeded to impose a major penalty without conducting any departmental enquiry, which cannot be countenanced in law. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. However, this Court makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent department is at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. If the respondents so choose, they shall issue a proper charge-sheet, 13 frame charges, initiate a regular departmental enquiry and afford full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, including supply of all relied upon documents, and conclude the enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, expeditiously, preferably within a reasonable time. Till such time the departmental enquiry is initiated and a final order is passed in accordance with law, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. It is clarified that the reinstatement shall be subject to the outcome of the departmental enquiry, if initiated. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE