1 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025:CGHC:37294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Order reserved on : 25.04. 2025 Order delivered on : 30.07. 2025 • Anita Agrawal W/o Prahlad Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years, Occupation District Programme Officer, Women And Child Development Department, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Under Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Women And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, by which the penalty has already been decided by the department against the provision of AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Act, 1966 without issuing show cause notice upon the proposed punishment. So, this petition is sought by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 17-04-2017 (Annexure P-1) as well as the entire proceeding of the departmental enquiry initiated by the respondent authorities. 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, there was tender for purchasing of pre-school kits for the year 2012-13 and the committee was constituted, whose head was the Collector, whereas the charge to the effect has been leveled against her that the petitioner being a member as a Secretary of the purchase committee did not purchase the pre-school kits from the lowest bidder. A decision was taken by respondent No. 2 to constitute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and notice dated 08.10.2015 was issued along with the charge-sheet and other relevant documents to the petitioner. After receiving the said notice, on 23.10.2015 the petitioner seeking time for submitting reply of the said notice upon the departmental enquiry. After reminder notice dated 07.11.2015 issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner had replied to the the reminder notice on 16.11.2015, copy of which are collectively filed as Annexure P/4. The department was not satisfied with the reply of petitioner and therefore, D.E. instituted against the petitioner and evidence of witnesses have been recorded between 20.07.2016 to 04.08.2016. It has been further contended that the Presenting Officer below the rank of the petitioner has been appointed and the said officer has given brief of the matter to the petitioner. After this brief, petitioner has made reply to the department on 21.12.2016, in which the main contention of the petitioner was that in the 3 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh entire proceedings for the purchase of pre-school kits, she was alone not responsible. Thereafter, the impugned order/notice dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has given the reply of the said impugned order on 20.04.2017, wherein it was mentioned that as per the provision of the Act, 1966 if the Enquiry Officer has made any opinion about the charges leveled against the delinquent employee and evidence laid by the parties, will send this opinion and prima facie holding the guilt of the delinquent employee to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority, thereafter going through the opinion of the enquiry officer will issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee, so as to why not the proposed penalty be imposed upon him or her, but after the issuance of brief of departmental enquiry, there is no communication to the petitioner and suddenly the impugned notice has been served upon the petitioner, which in fact is imposition of penalty, which is bad in law. Hence, this present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order/notice dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, arbitrary, improper and incorrect, hence it is liable to be set aside, the impugned order and procedure applied by the respondent authorities is against the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (often referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1966), particularly, against the Rule 45 of the Act, 1966, the method adopted by the respondents is against the Memo No. C-26/92/3/1 dated 20.08.1992 and against the settled provisions of Rule 14 (23), 15 (1), 15 (3) of the Act, 1966 as well as the principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 17.04.2017 shows the prejudice mind of the respondent authorities for not constituting the D.E. against other members of the Committee as well 4 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh as deciding the punishment without going through report of enquiry officer. As per the provision of the Act, 1966, if the enquiry officer has made any opinion about the charges leveled against the delinquent employee and evidence laid by the parties, will send this opinion and prima facie holding the guilt of the delinquent employee to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, after going thorough the opinion of the enquiry officer will issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee, so as why not the proposed penalty be imposed upon him or her, but after the issuance of brief of departmental enquiry, there is no communication to the petitioner and suddenly the impugned notice has been served upon the petitioner, which in fact is imposition of penalty, which is bad in law, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Rajit Singh1 & in the matter of Union of India vs. E. Bashyan2 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State strongly and vehemently opposes the above prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that while the petitioner was posted as District Programme Officer, WCD, Korba, the petitioner had committed illegality in purchasing the pre- school kits from the highest bidder, which was against the rules and on account of the act of the petitioner, the public exchequer cause a financial loss. A charge-sheet along with the list of documents and list of witnesses vide Annexure P/2 was served upon the petitioner leveling a single charge and the petitioner has replied the same. She further submits that being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the department has decided to institute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner by appointing the Enquiry Officer being Additional Collector, Korba and presenting Officer 1. (2022) 15 SCC 254 2. 1988 AIR 1000 5 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh being District Programme Officer, WCD, Korba. The Enquiry Officer after following due process of law and after affording due opportunity of hearing, has conducted the departmental enquiry, in which the charge leveled against the petitioner has been found to be proved. Thereafter, a report dated 31.12.2016 has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer as Annexure R-1. After receipt of the Enquiry Officer, a tentative decision of the disciplinary authority has been given to the petitioner by way of the impugned notice (Annexure P/1) and hence, the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with by the respondents. The impugned notice is not a final order of punishment, whereas the same is a notice in order to comply with the principles of natural justice to the petitioner before taking any final decision in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the entire petition is devoid of merit and substance and accordingly is liable to be dismissed at the threshold in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra3 and in the matter of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra.4 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that petitioner was working as District Programme Officer and a charge-sheet was issued against her and departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner and after completing the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority issued impugned notice as Annexure P/1 to the petitioner. 7. The main objection of the petitioner is that the said notice is against the CCA Rules, 1966 and principles of natural justice. 3 (1998) 7 SCC 84 4 (1999) 7 SCC 739 6 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire proceedings for purchasing of pre-school kits in the year 2012-13, petitioner alone was not responsible, as one committee was constituted for purchasing, in which the Collector was the main head and apart from the petitioner there were three other members in that said committee who are 1. District Manager, Department of Commerce and Industry, 2. Principal of I.T.I, Korba, 3. Principal, Aanganbadi Training Centre, Korba and final decision was taken by the committee anonymously and this decision of the committee was recommended by the Collector, therefore, she alone cannot be held responsible and the entire proceedings drawn against her is mala fide and she has been made scapegoat. 9. Petitioner has filed a copy of charge-sheet and other documents, whereas the respondents/State has filed a enquiry report vide Annexure R-1. In this enquiry report also, it is evident that a purchase Committee was constituted, in which five members of the said Committee, the said Committee headed by the Collector with other four members. 10. For the sake of convenience, the enquiry report is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :- “ ……. प्रदर्शित अभिलेखों का विरण विदया गया है। प्रद पी-4 टीप पत्र विदनांक 29.01.2013 के अनुसार वित्त र्ष 2012-13 में प्री- स्कू ल विकट क्र य हेतु विनम्नानुसार क्रय सविमतित का गठन विकया गया है:- (1) कलेक्टर द्वारा नामांविकत प्रतितविनति- - श्रीमती इफ्फतआरा ( तत्कालीन अपर कलेक्टर कोरबा), (2) जि7ला कायकम अति-कारी मविहला एं बाल विकास विाग कोरबा - सति9 (3) जि7ला प्रबं-क व्यापार एं उद्यद्योग विाग - सदस्य (4) प्रा9ाय आई टी आई कोरबा - सदस्य (5) प्रा9ाय ासकीय आंगनबाड़ी प्रभिक्षण के न्द्र कोरबा - सदस्य उक्त क्र य सविमतित में वित्तीय मामलों के 7ानकार अति-कारी रखा 7ाना 7 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh आश्यक था, 7ो पाराम दे सके , विकन्तु उन्हे क्र य सविमतित में नहीं रखा गया और ना ही उन्हें क्र य सविमतित में रखें 7ाने हेतु अप9ारी सेक ने तत्कालीन कलेक्टर महोदय से अनुमोदन लिलया है। " 11. It was found by the Enquiry Officer in enquiry report, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :- " 9ूंविक ासन द्वारा प्री स्कू ल विकट क्रय, हेतु र्षार आबंटन 7ारी विकया 7ाता है, अतः अप9ारी सेक एं उनके ब9ा सातिक्षयों का कथन विक गुणत्ता को देखते हुये न्यूनतम विनविदा दर से अति-क दर ाले विनविदाकार की विनविदा स्ीकृ त की गई है, कोई मायने नहीं रखता है। अतः अप9ारी सेक पर लगाये गये आरोप क्रमांक -1: विागीय 7ां9 में सही पाये 7ाते हैं। ( घ) प्रत्येक आरोप पद पर विनष्कर्ष और उनके कारण:-- मेरे समक्ष प्रस्तुत दस्ताे7ों एं कथनों के आ-ार पर तथा उपरोक्त र्शिणत कारणों के प्रका में मैं श्रीमती अविनता अग्राल तत्कालीन जि7ला कायक्रम अति-कारी मविहला एं बाल विकास विाग कोरबा के विरुद्ध लगाये गये आरोप को पूणतः प्रमाभिणत पाता हूं। " 12. It is evident from the inquiry report that the Enquiry Officer did not mention in his report that how the petitioner is alone responsible for purchasing the pre-school kits order, though, it is an admitted position that Additional Collector and other persons are also the members of the said Committee and after that Collector herself, being the head of the committee has recommended for the order of purchase of the said articles. 13. Enquiry Officer has also held that “….. यविद यह ी मान लिलया 7ाए विक उच्च गुणत्ता ाली सामाग्री को खरीदा गया तो मोल ा की संाना हमेा रहती है। क्रय सविमतित का काय यह देखना है विक क्रय प्रविकया में ण्डार क्रय विनयम का पालन हो, उच्च गुणत्ता सामाग्री की आपूर्तित हो तथा ासकीय -न की ब9त हो । यद्यविप यह कहना सही हो सकता है विक एक ही प्रकार की सामाग्री के क्रय मूल्य गुणत्ता के आ-ार पर अलग- अलग हो सकता है विकन्तु उच्च गुणत्ता विक सामाग्री को मोल ा अति-क ुगतान से ब9ा 7ा सकता था। यद्यविप श्रीमती अनीता अग्राल द्वारा यह तक विदया गया है विक प्री स्कू ल विकट क्रय सविमतित द्वारा विक गई है अतः े इसके लिलए अके ले जि7म्मेदार नहीं हैं विकन्तु सविमतित के सति9 होने के कारण जि7ला कायकम अति-कारी का उत्तरदातियत् बनता है।... " 14. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) in para 09, which reads as under:- 8 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh “9. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that when the aforesaid submission and the aforesaid decision was pressed into service, the High Court has not considered the same on the ground that the other officers involved in respect of the same incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them. Applying the law laid down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court in not allowing further proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet, is unsustainable.:” 15. It is also evident from the documents filed by both the parties that after enquiry report, impugned order/notice (Annexure P/1) issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 20.04.2017, the petitioner replied of the same as Annexure P/8, wherein she raised the objection on this ground that before taking any decision, no show cause notice was issued as per Rule 14 (23) of CCA Rule. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that Annexure P/1 is a notice as per Rule 14 (23) of CCA Rule, but it is evident from Annexure P/1 that it is not a show cause notice, but it is only notice regarding the imposition of penalty. 17. Operative para of Annexure P/1 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- " विर्षयान्तगत आपके विरुद्ध लंविबत लोक आयोग 7ां9 प्रकरण क्र मांक 74/2015 म 7ां9 में आरोप पूणत्तः प्रमाभिणत पाये 7ाने के कारण छ०ग० जिसविल सेा ( गXकरण विनयंत्रण तथा अपील) विनयम 1966 के विनयम 10 के अन्तगत उल्लेलिखत ास्तिस्तयों में से दीघ ास्तिस्त विदए 7ाने का अस्तिन्तम (प्राति-क) विनणय लेते हुए पदानत विकये 7ाने का विनणय लिलया गया है। तदनुसार समक्ष में सुनाई हेतु विदनाक 22.04.2017 की अपरान्ह 12:00 ब7े सति9 मविहला एं 7ल विकास विाग मंत्रालय के ूतल स्तिस्थत कक्ष क्रमांक -एस-0-10 में उपस्तिस्थत होना सुविनति[त करे" 18. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote Rule 14 (23) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Act, 1966:- 14. Procedure for imposing major penalties. 9 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh (23) (i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain- (a) the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (b) the defence of the Government servant in respect of each ~ article of charge; (c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; (d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. EXPLANATION- If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge: Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. (ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include :- (a) the report prepared by it under clause (i); (b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant; (c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; (d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the Government servant or both during the course of the inquiry; and (e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. 19. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of the Union of India (supra) in para 04, which reads as under:- “ It is no doubt true that when the Constitution Bench rendered the aforesaid decision in H.C. Goel's case Article 311(2) had not yet been amended. However, that makes little 10 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh difference. By virtue of the amendment what has been dispensed with is merely the notice in the context of the measure of penalty proposed to be imposed. 1 he opportunity required to be given to a delinquent which must be reasonable opportunity compatible with principles of Natural Justice has not been dispensed with by virtue of the said amendment. Therefore the view taken in the context of the contention that the Discipli- nary Authority need not afford an opportunity to the delinquent in regard to the measure of the punishment will not hold good in the context of the present argument in the background of the non-supply of the report of the Enquiry officer. In the event of the failure to furnish the report of the Enquiry officer the delinquent is deprived of crucial and critical material which is taken into account by the real authority who holds him guilty namely, the Disciplinary Authority. He is the real authority because the Enquiry officer does no more than act as a delegate and furnishes the relevant material including his own assessment regarding the guilt to assist the Disciplinary Authority who alone records the effective finding in the sense that the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer standing by themselves are lacking in force and effectiveness. Non-supply of the report would therefore constitute violation of principles of Natural Justice and accordingly will be tantamount to denial of reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.’’ 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh5 in paras 28 & 34, which read as under:- 28. The majority opinion in the Constitution Bench decision of B. Karunakar (supra) was authored by Hon'ble P.B.Sawant, J. The questions which this Court considered are as under: “2. The basic question of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the enquiry officer/authority who/which is appointed by the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee, is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 11 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its own finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be awarded to him. This question in turn gives rise to the following incidental questions: i. Whether the report should be furnished to the employee even when the statutory rules laying down the procedure for holding the disciplinary enquiry are silent on the subject or are against it? ii. Whether the report of the enquiry officer is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee even when the punishment imposed is other than the major punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank? iii. Whether the obligation to furnish the report is only when the employee asks for the same or whether it exists even otherwise? iv. Whether the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan case will apply to all establishments — Government and non- Government, public and private sector undertakings? v. What is the effect of the non-furnishing of the report on the order of punishment and what relief should be granted to the employee in such cases? vi. From what date the law requiring furnishing of the report, should come into operation? vii. Since the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan case has made the law laid down there prospective in operation, i.e., applicable to the orders of punishment passed after November 20, 1990 on which day the said decision was delivered, this question in turn also raises another question, viz., what was the law prevailing prior to November 20, 1990?” (emphasis ours) 34. Hon’ble Ramaswamy, J. answered the basic question as follows: “61. It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offends Articles 14 and 21. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post-mortem certificate with putrefying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14 , 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice. The contention on behalf of the Government/management that the report is not evidence adduced during such enquiry envisaged under proviso to Article 311(2) is also devoid of 12 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh substance. It is settled law that the Evidence Act has no application to the enquiry conducted during the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with the Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principles of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by ‘evidence’ in the proviso to Article 311(2) is the totality of the material collected during the enquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both.” (emphasis ours) 21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the above judgments, it is also evident that after the enquiry report (Annexure R/1), no show cause notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner and impugned order/notice (Annexure P/1) clearly shows that the decision was taken by the disciplinary authority for demotion of the petitioner and this is a clear violation of service rules and principles of natural justice. 22. It is also quite evident that respondents/State has failed to submit this fact that what action was taken against the other members of the purchasing committee except the petitioner. It is quite evident from enquiry report that regarding purchase of the said articles, a joint decision was taken by the said committee comprising of five members, in which the Additional Collector was one of the member and also President of this Committee, but disciplinary action was only taken against the petitioner by excluding the other members. Further, it is also not evident from the reply and documents filed by the respondents that in the 13 Writ Petition (S) No. 2494 of 2017 Anita Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh said committee, Additional Collector was the President and the petitioner was the Secretary and the rest three members are also in the said Committee and in enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer also found that purchasing committee has followed the rule of the Chhattisgarh State Stores Purchase Rules, 2002 (Bhandar Kray Niyam 2002) and trying to save money of the government and the petitioner was the Secretary of the said committee, so she alone is responsible for all this misconduct, this finding is also against the principles of natural justice and service rules. 23. Petitioner filed various note-sheets which shows that all decision taken by the purchasing committee and it is evident that the concerned Collector issued purchasing order. It is also admitted by the respondent that during the disciplinary enquiry, Presenting Officer was below the rank of the petitioner which is also not according to the service rules. 24. As such looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order/notice dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) and entire proceedings of departmental enquiry are hereby quashed/set aside with all consequential benefits. However, liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if so desire and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to the petitioner, pass a fresh appropriate order as per service rules and also adhering to the principles of natural justice. 25. As an upshot, the writ petition stands allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL