1 2025:CGHC:46232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9598 of 2025 Bhupendra Goir S/o Late Shyam Goir Aged About 30 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade-Iii At Office Of Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Municipal Corporation Durg Through Its Commissioner, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4. The Returning Officer Of Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 2 by which Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg imposed penalty upon the petitioner withholding one increment with cumulative effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the approval of Collector and District Education Officer, punishment order has been imposed upon the petitioner and as per Municipal Corporation Rules, the Collector is neither Appellate authority nor disciplinary authority of the petitioner as per Section 58 of Municipal Corporation Act, the Appointing authority for the petitioner is Commissioner Municipal Corporation, therefore, recommendation made by the Collector is without authority, nonest and on this count the punishment is liable to be quashed. He would further submit that Rule 16 of CCA Rules 1966 procedure for imposition of minor penalty and according to Rule 10 withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is minor penalty. He would further submit that the punishment of witholding of one increment with cumulative effect imposed without following due procedure i.e. issuance of charge sheet, conducting enquiry as such punishment is nonest and illegal and would pray for allowing the petition. 3. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the submission and would submit that since the petitioner was negligent towards discharge of Election duty, as such his service was at disposal of Election Commission as per Rule 20 of CCA Rule 1966 and borrowing authority shall have the power of appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him, as such correct procedure has been followed by the respondent. He would further submit 3 that punishment is not so disproportionate to the misconduct and reply of which was submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, thereafter punishment order was passed is legal, justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From the record, it is not in dispute that misconduct committed by the petitioner when his service was at the disposal of Election Commission, therefore, as per Rule 20 of CCA Rule 1966 Election Commission of India is the disciplinary authority which has approved the punishment order passed by Commission Municipal Corporation, as such procedure prescribed in Rule 20 of CCA 1066 has duly been followed. From perusal of show cause notice and reply submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, as such withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is minor punishment and no explanation was made by the petitioner, therefore, no illegality is found in the impugned punishment order. Even othewise, It is well settled position of law that in the disciplinary matter interference of the High Court is very limited unless and until the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct or touches the conscious of the Court, as such I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner after following due produce of law, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 12:36:49 +0530