1 2025:CGHC:10479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2225 of 2019 Hemshankar Deshlahra S/o Shri Dukoriha Deshlahra Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. MIG II 229A, Borsi Colony Durg, Police Station Padmnabhpur, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Mob. 9425262312) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhwan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya District Raipur (CG). 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Directorate, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Under Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Government Of C.G. Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner challenging the orders (Annexure-P/1) dated 27.6.2016, Annexure-P/5 dated 05.05.2018 and Annexure-P/7 dated 11.12.2018, whereby the petitioner, who was Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bemetara, was held guilty and has been imposed 2 penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 (henceforth referred to as “Rules, 1973”) and appeal & review preferred by petitioner were also rejected. 3. As per the facts projected by petitioner, he was posted as Chief Municipal Officer at Municipal Council, Bemetara (CG) from 08.02.2010 to 19.07.2010. It is alleged that while his posting in aforesaid period, he had made excess payment in running bills against the actual work done by the contractor. Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for aforesaid charges and Inquiry Officer / Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur (CG) submitted his report vide Annexure-R/1 dated 06.05.2015. Perusal of aforesaid enquiry report shows that in departmental enquiry, he was found guilty of violation of rules of C.G. Municipalities (Accounts) Rules, 1971; C.G. Municipalities Conduct of Business of Mayor-in-Council / President-in- council of the Powers and functions of the Authorities Rules, 1998 (for short “Rules, 1998”); C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “CCA Rules, 1966”); C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965; C.G. P.W.D. Manual; and C.G. Bhandar Kray Niyam, 2002. Based on that enquiry report, vide impugned order dated 27.6.2016 (Annexure-P/1), petitioner has been imposed penalty as has been stated in opening paragraph, which has been challenged by petitioner by filing instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bemetara (CG) at the time of said embezzlement, thus, his service was governed with the Rules, 1973. In aforesaid rule, procedure for any enquiry / departmental 3 enquiry has been envisaged from Rule 31 to 44 including appeal. But in instant case, the said enquiry has not been conducted as per the aforesaid provision, rather, it has been conducted under the CCA Rules, 1966, whereas that rule is not applicable at all to the petitioner, hence learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this petition may be allowed and the impugned orders may be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel, referring to its reply, would submit that after due departmental enquiry, penalty has been imposed against the petitioner. When specific question was posed to learned State counsel that under which rule, the said departmental enquiry has been conducted, then referring to Departmental Enquiry Report (Annexure-R/1), he submits that the departmental enquiry has been conducted under the CCA Rules, 1966 and it has not been conducted under the Rules, 1973. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, at the relevant time, petitioner was posted on the post of Chief Municipal Officer at Municipal Council, Bemetara, as such, he was employee of the State Municipal Service (Executive) Cadre. Service conditions of such employees are governed under the Rules, 1973. Rule 31 to 44 contemplate rules under Chapter-IX ‘Discipline and Appeals’. Thus, if any disciplinary action or proceeding is required to be taken against any chief municipal officer, then provisions contemplated under chapter 9 from Rule 31 to 44 ought to have been complied with. But, perusal of second para of Departmental Enquiry Report dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure-R/1) specifically shows that the said departmental enquiry has not been conducted under the Rules, 1973 4 against the petitioner, rather, it has been conducted under the CCA Rules, 1966, which is not applicable to the petitioner. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and the Rules, 1973, it is evidently clear that alleged departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner by applying wrong rule. Hence only on this count, without entering into the merits of the case, I feel inclined to allow the instant writ petition, as such, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-P/1 dated 27.06.2016, Annexure-P/5 dated 05.05.2018 and Annexure-P/7 dated 11.12.2018 are quashed / set aside. However, liberty is left with the respondent authorities to take recourse to law against the petitioner if so advised, in accordance with applicable rules. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.03.05 15:58:34 +0530