1 2025:CGHC:22943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6456 of 2016 Ritu Selot W/o Shri Anup Selot, Aged About 39 Years Posted As Asst. Engineer At Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Comapny Ltd, C.S.P.G.C.L. R/o G 04, Pink City Gayatri Nagar, P.S. Telibanda Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. C S P G C L Through Its Managing Director C.S.P.G.C.L. 3rd Floor Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Dagania, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director, C.S.P.G.C.L. 3rd Floor Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Dangania, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Engineer H.R. C.S.P.G.C.L. Shad No 3, Infront Of Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Dangania, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Executive Director O And M Gen C.S.P.G.C.L. 5the Floor Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Dagania, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Veena Nair, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10.06 .2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 17/06/2016 (Annexure P/10) by which respondent No. 2 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner thereby, affirming the order dated 24/02/2016 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the service of the petitioner in accordance with Rule 10(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “the Rules of 1966”). 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner has been terminated from service without following the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 as neither show cause notice was served to the petitioner nor charge-sheet was issued and without providing the list of evidence and documents and without obtaining the reply of 3 the petitioner on the allegations levelled against her, and without holding any departmental inquiry, she was straightway terminated from service invoking the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(ii)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 which is absolutely unsustainable and bad in law, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/9) as well as the order of termination (Annexure P/7) be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated along with back wages. 3. Per contra, Ms. Veena Nair, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that though the petitioner was terminated from service without holding any departmental inquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, if this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the order impugned passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside, the respondents be granted the liberty to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the rules. She would further submit that petitioner will not be entitled for back wages as no such specific relief has been sought by her. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 5. True it is that petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 24/02/2016 (Annexure P/8) in accordance with Rule 10(viii) of the Rules of 1966 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the appellate authority by impugned order dated 17/06/2016 (Annexure P/10) but it has been admitted by the respondents in memo dated 14/01/2016 that petitioner was not subjected to charge sheet in the prescribed form and learned counsel for the respondents has also admitted that charge sheet was not issued to the petitioner and no departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. It is well settled that the departmental enquiry is deemed to have been instituted upon issuance of the charge-sheet and, since the petitioner has been terminated from service, he ought to have been subjected to departmental proceeding/enquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 by issuance of the charge- sheet. Therefore, petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in the office of the respondent i.e. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. as a permanent employee, could not have been terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. Accordingly, the order of her termination dated 24/02/2016 (Annexure 5 P/8) as well as the impugned order dated 17/06/2016 (Annexure P/10) passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority for conducting the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with the applicable rules. 6. Now the question of reinstatement comes in. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani1, has held that once the court sets asides an order of punishment on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted properly, the court cannot reinstate the employee and held in paragraph 16 as under :- “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar2, Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls3, U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey4 and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu5)” 7. The principle of law laid down in A. Masilamani (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Inspector of Panchayats 1 (2013) 6 SCC 530 2 (1993) 4 SCC 727 3 (2002) 10 SCC 293 4 (2005) 8 SCC 264 5 (2008) 12 SCC 30 6 and District Collector, Salem v. S. Arichandran and others6 wherein it has been held as under :- “16. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as the order of dismissal has been set aside on the ground that the same was in breach of principles of Natural Justice, the High Court ought to have remitted the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and to give opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer’s Report.” 8. Further in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Rajit Singh7, their Lordships have followed the principle of law laid down in A. Masilamani (supra) with approval. 9. In view of the aforesaid legal principle, no direction can be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for reinstatement is refused while partly granting the writ petition. 10. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet 6 2022 SCC Online SC 1282 7 (2022) 15 SCC 254