1 2026:CGHC:8314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 201 of 2020 R.B. Tripathi, S/o. Late Kamta Prasad Tripathi, Aged About 62 Years, R/o. Sr. HIG II-202, Block B, Kanchan Ashav Parisar, D.D.V. Nagar, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010. ... Petitioner versus Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Limited, Through The Chairman , Block No. 08, CS Power Companies Campus, Daganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492013, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.R.Nair, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.02.17 10:27:06 +0530 2 16.02.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 18.11.2016 and thereafter order dated 19.11.2019, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority. 2. Dr. N.K.Shukla, learned senior counsel would submit that a careful perusal of the order dated 19.11.2019 at para 5 would show that in one line order, the appeal has been dismissed without assigning any reason and without following the Rule 27(2) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rules of 1996). Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.R.Nair, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously. 5. Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1996 provided as under : “27. Consideration of appeal : - xxx….xxx….xxx…… 3 (2). In the case of an appeal 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; and pass order - (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: 6. At para 5 of the impugned order dated 19.11.2019, the appellate authority has stated the following reasons while dismissing the appeal: “05. It is further requested that an interim order may please be issued to maintain the then status quo i.e. for not implementing the aforesaid punishment till consideration of the appeal. vkSj ;g fd Jh vkj]ch] f=ikBh eq[; vfHk;ark ¼orZeku esa lsok fuo`Rr½ }kjk izLrqr vihy vH;kosnu fnukad 26-11-16 dks N]x] flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k fu;a.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 29 ds rgr iqufoZyksdu fd, tkus gsrq 4 lapkyd eaMy ds le{k izLrqr fd, tkus ij fnukad 18-10- 2019 dks vkgwr lapkkyd eaMy dh eaMy dh cSBd esa fuEukuqlkj fu.kZ; fy;k x;k % “The Board considered the petition filed by Shri R.B.Tripathi. After discussion in detail, the Board decided that there is no need/ justification for change in the resolution passed by the Board in its meeting held on 24.10.2016. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Shri R.B.Tripathi be retained.” vr,o] lapkyd eaMy }kjk fy, x, fu.kZ; ds ifjis{; esa Jh vkj] ch] f=ikBh eq[; vfHk;ark ¼orZeku esa lsok fuo`Rr½ }kjk izLrqr vihy vH;kosnu fnukad 26-11-16 dks vLohdkj djrs gq, daiuh ds vkns’k dz] 804 fnuksd 18-11-2016 }kjk vf/kjksfir ‘kkfLr ;Fkkor~ j[kh tkrh gSA ” 7. A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that Board has only discussed in detail but proceeded to dismiss the appeal by its resolution dated 24.10.2016. However, no reason has been assigned as required under Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1996. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.11.2019 and the Board’s decision dated 24.10.2016 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for hearing and disposal of appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months, as the petitioner has retired from his services. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned herein above. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge