1 2025:CGHC:43567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3672 of 2018 1 - Smt. Ritu Surange W/o W/o Late Shri Uday Surange, Aged About 56 Years Working As Principal At- Govt Hr. Sec. School, Raipura, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, R/o F-10, Fact- 1, Street-5, Shriram Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent for quashing the impugned order of punishment, dt. 24/04/2018 Annexure - P/1. b. May kindly be pleased to direct the respondent for treating the suspension period as on duty and thereafter for allowing the consequential benefits of services. C. May kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. d. Cost of petition may kindly be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitoner was holding the post of Principal under the respondent and article of charge was issued by the respondent on 16.10.2015. He would further submit that the petitioner filed reply to the article of charge on 05.11.2015 and thereafter without holding any inquiry and without affording 2 any opportunity of hearing, the disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 24.04.2018. He would contend that the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’) have not been followed, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the order impugned is appealable one, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitoner; reply was filed by the petitioner and thereafter, order impugned was passed. He would further contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. With regard to alternative remedy, as the respondent failed to follow the Rule established by law while inflicting penalty and opportunity of hearing was also not afforded, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable against the order impugned. 6. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 reads as under : “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties. (1)Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, по order imposing on a Government servant any of the spenalties 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; 3 (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.” 7. In the present case, article of charge was issued to the petitioner on 05.11.2015 which reads as under : आरोप पत्रः - श्रीमती ऋती सुरगे, प्रा चा र्य (निलनिती) शा .उ.म .नि. म र र्यपुर, जिल र र्यपुर छ.गे. के निरूद्ध अशा सु त्मके के र्य ही हीती निम्लिलखि&ती आरपु अधि)रनिपुती निकेए ती ही+- आरोप क्रमां क -01 र्यही निके आपुके जिल लिशाक्षा अधि)के र र र्यपुर द्वा र दा ती इन्टर शाल पुब्लि3लके स्के5 ल दान्द्र गेर र र्यपुर के म न्र्यती दा हीती निर्यम सु र स्थल निरक्षाण केर निरक्षाण प्रानितीदा प्रास्तीती केर के निदा9शा दिदाए गेए थे. निकेन्ती आपुके द्वा र निर्यम/निदा9शा< के= अदा& केरती हुए उक्ती निद्या लर्य मA केक्षा सुBचा ल हीती पुर्य प्ती भ / केमर< के= उपुलब्धती हीF ही के= ब्लिस्थनिती पु ए पुर भ आपुके द्वा र उक्ती सुस्थ के म न्र्यती प्रादा केर हीती अशाBसु के= गेई। आपुके द्वा र निकेर्य गेर्य र्यही केI त्र्य शा सुके=र्य के र्य के प्रानिती घोर ल पुर ही तीथे स्च्छा चा रिरती रती के द्यात्तके हीN।" 8. The petitioner filed reply to article of charge and thereafter, the respondent vide order dated 24.04.2018 inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing, thus, the disciplinary authority failed to comply with the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966. 9. Considering the above-discussed facts, the order Annexure P/1 dated 24.04.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, is hereby quashed. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha