1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2623 of 2023 Order Reserved on : 10.11.2025 Order Delivered on : 21.11.2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Puran Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Jail Warder, District Jail Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Jail And Corrective Service, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Jagdalpur District Baster Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 2 1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, as well as against the order dated 30.07.2022 passed by respondent No.3 imposing the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Jail Warden and was posted at Central Jail, Jagdalpur at the relevant time. It is submitted that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1996, as well as under Rules 252(b), 273, 570 and 571(5) of the Jail Manual. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 14.03.2022, at about 10:06 PM, during a night search conducted while the petitioner was on duty from 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM, two packets of tobacco were recovered, on the basis of which the aforesaid charges were levelled. After completion of the departmental enquiry, respondent No.3, vide order dated 30.07.2022, imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.02.2023. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- 3 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respondents pertaining to the petitioner's case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction, quashing the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 and consequently order dated 30.07.2022 be quashed. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper as per the nature of the case. An affidavit in support of this writ petition is filed herewith.” 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Jail Warder and, at the relevant time, was posted at Central Jail, Jagdalpur, later being transferred to District Jail, Mungeli. On 14.03.2022, while the petitioner was assigned duty from 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM for the security of prisoners in Barracks No. 6 to 10, a search was conducted at the jail entry point, during which two packets of tobacco were recovered, alleged to have been kept for providing to prisoners. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated, a show-cause notice was issued, and charges were framed for violation of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1996, and Rules 252(b), 273, 570 and 571(5) of the Jail Manual. Upon completion of the enquiry, respondent No.3, vide order dated 30.07.2022, imposed the penalty of withholding 4 two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner’s appeal against the said order was dismissed on 02.02.2023. As the findings of both authorities are alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and cryptic, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 30.07.2022 and 02.02.2023 are illegal, arbitrary and passed without proper appreciation of facts or evidence. It is argued that the mere recovery of two packets of tobacco during a routine search does not establish that the petitioner intended to supply them to prisoners, and no material has been brought on record to prove any such misconduct. Counsel contends that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner’s clean and unblemished service record, and despite the absence of cogent or clinching evidence, imposed a highly disproportionate penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is further submitted that both the disciplinary and appellate authorities passed cryptic and non-speaking orders, mechanically affirming the charges without addressing the petitioner’s defence. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside in the interest of justice. Reliance has been placed on the matters of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ramsevak Shukla vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in WP No. 1305/2013 as well as Daulat Singh Verma vs. The Stae of Madhya Pradesh and others in WP No. 6588/2024. 5 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the present petition is devoid of merit, as the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are legal, well- reasoned, and based on ample material on record. It is submitted that on 14.03.2022, while the petitioner was on duty at Central Jail, Jagdalpur, two packets of prohibited tobacco were recovered from his possession at the jail entrance, which was duly recorded in the Gatekeeper’s Register and Jailor’s Report Book. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated in accordance with law, during which the petitioner was served with the charge- sheet, list of witnesses, and relevant documents, and was granted multiple opportunities to respond. It is further submitted that in his replies dated 04.05.2022, 26.05.2022 and 15.07.2022, the petitioner categorically admitted his guilt, and the enquiry report, supported by witness statements, confirmed all charges. Therefore, considering the gravity of misconduct and the petitioner’s admission, the Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is contended that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the decision-making process, and since the enquiry was conducted fairly and strictly in accordance with rules, no ground for interference is made out. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 has held as under:- "While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with." 9. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Fazal Bhai Dhala vs. The Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, New Delhi and another and the Custodian Evacuee Property, Madras reported in AIR 1961 SC 1397 has held as under:- “The proviso secures the requirements of the principles of natural justice when it says that any order prejudicial to any person shall not be passed without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. No specific provision for 7 service of notice in order that such a reasonable opportunity of being heard be given has however been made by any rule. It goes without saying that in the large majority of cases, the Custodian "will, in order to give the party concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, first give him a notice of his intention to examine the records to satisfy himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by the subordinate officer and require such person to show cause if any why the order should not be revised or modified, and then if and when the party appears before him in response to the notice, the Custodian has also to allow him, either personally or through counsel, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In suitable cases it may be proper and necessary for the Custodian to allow the party concerned even to adduce evidence. There may be cases however where the party concerned is already before the Custodian, so that all that is necessary for the Custodian to do is to inform such party of his intention to examine the records to satisfy himself whether a particular order should be revised, and then to give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There would be no necessity in such a case to serve a formal notice on the party who is already before the Custodian and the omission to serve the notice can be of no consequence. What the law requires is that the person concerned should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any order prejudicial to him is made in revision. If this reasonable opportunity of being heard cannot be given without the service of the notice the omission 8 to serve the notice would be fatal; where however proper hearing can be given without service notice, it does not matter at all, and all that has to be seen is whether even though no notice was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard was given.” 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the departmental proceedings, the enquiry report, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, as well as the documents placed before this Court. 11. At the outset, it is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, interference is warranted where the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, the procedure adopted is unfair, or the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that a disciplinary action unsupported by evidence cannot be sustained. 12. Coming to the present case, the entire departmental action against the petitioner rests on the recovery of two packets of tobacco during a routine jail search on 14.03.2022, while the petitioner was on duty. However, a careful evaluation of the enquiry record reveals that no witness has stated that the said 9 packets were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner or that the petitioner was attempting to supply them to prisoners. The disciplinary authority has not recorded any finding establishing a live link between the petitioner and the alleged contraband, nor any material to prove that the petitioner violated Rules 252(b), 273, 570 or 571(5) of the Jail Manual in any deliberate or conscious manner. 13. Further, the finding of guilt is vitiated by the fact that no independent evidence was produced to establish that the petitioner was carrying the tobacco, and the enquiry report proceeds merely on the assumption that since the search occurred during petitioner’s duty hours, he must be responsible. Such conclusion is purely speculative and falls short of the standard of preponderance of probabilities required even in a domestic enquiry. As held in Roop Singh Negi (supra), suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. 14. The Disciplinary Authority, while imposing the penalty of withholding two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect, has not discussed (i) the evidence relied upon, (ii) the petitioner’s explanation, or (iii) the reasons why the penalty was appropriate. The Appellate Authority too, in the order dated 02.02.2023, has merely endorsed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority without independent reasoning. The law is well settled that disciplinary orders, especially those affecting civil consequences, must be 10 reasoned and self-contained; failure to do so vitiates the decision- making process (See Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496). 15. The penalty imposed also calls for scrutiny. The punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect is a major civil consequence and has a lifelong adverse impact on salary and pension. In the absence of cogent evidence, and in view of the petitioner’s otherwise unblemished service record, such punishment is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Disproportionate punishment is a valid ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (See Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611). 16. It is trite that prison administration requires strict discipline, yet disciplinary proceedings must conform to principles of natural justice and must be based on a rational and evidence-based assessment. In the present case, the lack of evidence, absence of reasoned orders, and disproportionate penalty together render the impugned action unsustainable. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the orders dated 30.07.2022 passed by respondent No.3 and 02.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2 suffer from serious legal infirmities and cannot be allowed to stand. 11 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.2022 imposing the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, and the appellate order dated 02.02.2023, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to restoration of increments, with all consequential benefits. It is directed that the arrears arising out of the restoration of increments shall be computed and released to the petitioner by the concerned respondent authorities within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 10.11.2025 21.11.2025 21.11.2025 21.11.2025