1 (WPS No. 2641 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:5348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2641 of 2016 1 - Ajay Kumar Bajpai S/o Shri Nandan Prasad Bajpai, Aged About 51 Years R/o F/2 Jailor Banglo Jail Parisar, Central Jail Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General, Jail And Correction Services, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29.01.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 05.05.2016 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.02.03 12:18:34 +0530 2 (WPS No. 2641 of 2016) been dismissed and order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure P/11) passed by respondent No.2, imposing the penalty of censure upon the petitioner, has been confirmed/upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure P/11), passed by the Director General, Jail and Correctional Services, Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with penalty of censure, has been dismissed by the appellate authority/respondent No.1 by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 05.05.2016 (Annexure P/1), 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 05.05.2016, as well as order of punishment dated 08.09.2014 are liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 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 3 (WPS No. 2641 of 2016) 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 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 4 (WPS No. 2641 of 2016) 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. In that view of the matter, order dated 05.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District – 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. 8. 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!