1 (WPS No. 4074 of 2013) 2025:CGHC:8066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4074 of 2013 1 - S.R.Kashyap S/o Shri P.R.Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Working As Forest Range Officer, At Gomarda Sanctuary, Baramkela, Tah And Ps Baramkela, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Prime Chief Conservator Of Forest, C.G. H.Q. Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, Distt Durg, Now Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 14.02.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.02.1996 (Annexure P/2), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.20 11:05:11 +0530 2 (WPS No. 4074 of 2013) been dismissed and order dated 08.06.1993 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, has been confirmed/upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 08.06.1993 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration), Bhopal now the Prime Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh/respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been imposed with the penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, has been dismissed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, Bhopal now the State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur/respondent No.1 by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 20.02.1996 (Annexure P/2), which runs contrary to Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth shall be referred to as “CCA Rules, 1966”) and, as such, impugned order dated 20.02.1996, as well as order of punishment dated 08.06.1993 are liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. He has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 3 (WPS No. 4074 of 2013) the matter of Allahabad Bank and Others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari 1 to buttress his submission. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the impugned orders are strictly in accordance with law and, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be profitable to notice Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which reads as under :- “27. Consideration of appeal.- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider – (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary 1 (2017) 2 SCC 308 4 (WPS No. 4074 of 2013) authority are warranted by the evidence on the record ; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; ” 6. It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid Rule 27(2) that while deciding the appeal of the petitioner herein, none of the requirements for consideration of appeal were complied with by the appellate authority and his appeal was dismissed, which is not a correct way to decide an appeal. The appeal of the petitioner ought to have been considered on merits as mandated in Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which apparently has not been done in this case. 7. So far as, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in Krishna Narayan Tewari (supra) is concerned, it is clearly distinguishable under the facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that in Krishna Narayan Tewari (supra) the High Court therein after considering other aspects of the matter including the fact that the delinquent employee was superannuated during the pendency of the writ petition and had also suffered a heart attack and a stroke that had rendered him physically disabled and confined to bed, did not thought it appropriate to remand the matter back for fresh 5 (WPS No. 4074 of 2013) consideration and set aside the order of punishment, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court, but the same is not the case herein. 8. In that view of the matter, order dated 20.02.1996 (Annexure P/2) passed by the appellate authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh for considering the appeal of the petitioner afresh in light of Rule 27(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!