1 2025:CGHC:39793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3266 of 2021 1 - Kamal Narayan Sahu S/o Late Shri Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years Posted As Sub Inspector, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Director, Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Yash Karan Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 That, the records pertaining to the departmental enquiry with respect to Petitioner may be called for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the impugned order dated 19/10/2020 and 14/12/2020 passed by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 respectively, may kindly be set-aside and all the consequential reliefs may be awarded to the Petitioner. Further, the enquiry report submitted by Respondent no.3 may also be quashed. 10.3 That, any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.10.2020, passed by respondent No.2, whereby a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was issued and vide order dated 14.12.2020, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Inspector under the respondent-Board and was posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mahasamund. He would contend that a departmental proceeding was initiated against Shri Bodhan Ram Mandai and an article of charge was issued on 25.11.2019. He would contend that Shri Bodhan Ram Mandai filed his reply on 24.8.2020. In the said reply, certain facts emerged implicating the petitioner in the commission of misconduct. Consequently, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to appear before the disciplinary authority in person and thereafter, a penalty of stoppage of one increment was imposed by the disciplinary authority 3 vide order dated 19.10.2020. He would further contend that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Chhattisgarh State Mandi Board Service Regulations, 1998 (for short ‘Rules, 1998’). He would also contend that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in contravention of the Rules, 1998, as no show-cause notice was issued, no article of charge was served, no departmental enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. He would pray to quash the orders impugned. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that in the departmental enquiry initiated against Shri Bodhan Ram Mandai, statements of various employees were recorded, and after detailed consideration, the enquiry officer submitted his report. He would further submit that the enquiry report reveals that the illegalities which occurred during the year 2018 resulted from a composite failure to perform duties by various employees, including the petitioner and therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner too. He would also submit that since the allegations against the petitioner were almost identical to those against others, no separate article of charge was issued. He would further argue that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer for a personal hearing on 12.10.2020 and during the course of the hearing, admitted his guilt. Consequently, the disciplinary authority passed the order on 19.10.2020. He would further argue that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable before the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board, Raipur. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Perusal of the documents and return filed by the respondents would reveal that an enquiry was initiated against Shri Bodhan Ram Mandai, Secretary posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mahasamund. In that departmental enquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as certain facts emerged implicating him in the commission of misconduct. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to appear before the authority concerned, and thereafter, a penalty of stoppage of one increment was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 19.10.2020. 7. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules of 1998. According to these Rules, it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to issue a show-cause notice and an article of charge, and after a full- fledged enquiry, the Competent Authority may impose a penalty. In the present case, no separate article of charge was issued, and no departmental enquiry was conducted affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his case. Although the petitioner admitted his guilt, since the procedure contemplated under the Rules was not followed, the penalty imposed is illegal and bad in law. The penalty on admission of an incumbent can be inflicted after following the due process of the law. 8. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider the fact that no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. 5 9. Considering the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the orders dated 19.10.2020 & 14.12.2020 passed by respondents No.1 & 2 are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and both orders are hereby quashed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi