1 2025:CGHC:59470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.9887 of 2019 B.S. Kanwar, S/o M.S. Kanwar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o MIG 63- A, Dindayal Colony, Mangala, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., 2 - Under - Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Shivnath Bhawan District Raipur Chhattisgarh. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.12.08 15:54:53 +0530 2 4 - Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Shri Ritesh Giri, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This Petition has been filed assailing the show-cause notice dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby, without conducting a regular Departmental Enquiry, the Petitioner was held guilty and a punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect as show cause notice was served. 2. The facts, succinctly stated, are that the Petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, E/M, Sub-Division Sakri, District Bilaspur. On 12.12.2017, a female employee namely Smt Sunita Soni, who was posted as Store Assistant, has filed a written complaint against Sub-Engineers namely Surendra Patre and PK Chouhan, who are subordinates to the present Petitioner, with regard to sexual harassment at work place. An Internal Committee has been constituted and upon completion of enquiry, the said Committee 3 made recommendation against the present Petitioner also with respect to functioning of the Office of Sub-Divisional Officer and on such recommendation made by the Committee, a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21.02.2018 (Annexure P-4) to which, the Petitioner has filed his reply on 26.02.2018 (Annexured P-5). Thereafter, the Chief Engineer has, vide its letter dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P-6), recommended the Engineer-in- Chief, Water Resources Department for taking action against the Petitioner with a minor penalty of Censure against him under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and accordingly, recommendation has been made to the Secretary, Water Resources Department by the Engineer-in- Chief vide its letter dated 07.09.2019 (Annexure R-3). Thereafter, the impugned show-cause notice for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been issued to the Petitioner by the State Government on 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-1). Hence this Petition. 3. Shri Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) and only an allegation was made against two subordinate employees of the present Petitioner i.e. Sub Engineers namely Shri Surendra Patre 4 and Shri PK Chouhan and as per enquiry report, which has been filed under Section 11 of the Act of 2013, it is explicit that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the present Petitioner. He further submits that no complaint has been made by the Complainant under the Act of 2013 against the present Petitioner, and de hors any such complaint, the Committee’s recommendation has been acted upon without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and without conducting any regular Departmental Enquiry. He further submits that by way of impugned show-cause notice dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-1), the Petitioner was also held guilty and the show-cause notice for punishment of major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been given to him for which, a regular enquiry is necessary. He placed reliance on the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 and submits that ordinarily, a writ would not be exercised against a show-cause notice and in the present case, the authorities, in a pre-determined manner, issued impugned show-cause notice to the Petitioner, therefore, in view of the principle laid in the matter of Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33, the authorities have acted without jurisdiction and prays to quash the impugned show-cause notice while allowing the Petition. 5 4. 5 4. Conversely, Shri Giri, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned show-cause notice/action on the part of the State and submits that only a show-cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner, therefore, the Petition is premature. However, he fairly admits that no enquriy has been conducted against the present Petitioner under the Act of 2013. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned show-cause notice and also gone through all the Annexures with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the complaint under the Act of 2013 was preferred against two subordinate employees of the present Petitioner and the Internal Complaints Committee, in terms of Section 11 of the said Act, conducted an enquiry against those persons wherein, the Petitioner was not a party and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, even though the Committee ultimately made a recommendation against him. On the basis of such recommendation, the Chief-Engineer, vide its letter dated 27.02.2018 (Annexure P-6), has made recommendation for Censure against the present Petitioner, which is a minor penalty and in turn, the Engineer-in-Chief has also forwarded the proposal to the Secretary, Water Resources Department vide Annexure R-3 as the State, without conducting any regular enquiry, issued a show-cause notice of major penalty for stoppage of one increment 6 with cumulative effect and the same falls within the meaning of major penalty, as has been explained in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra). 7. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of a regular enquiry, the impugned show-cause notice is bad in law and the authority has no power to impose such penalty without holding an enquiry or following the prescribed procedure, therefore, the action on the part of the State would be without jurisdiction or authority of law and it would be per se void. 8. Resultantly, the impugned show-cause notice dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. However, the State would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the instant Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya