1 2026:CGHC:23098-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 341 of 2026 Ram Ratan Tandey S/o Ram Bhajan Tandey, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village And Post Ukhar Block Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Welfare, Govt. Of Cg, Dks Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Women And Child Welfare Directorate, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Collector, Jashpur, Dsitrict- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Project Officer Child Development Project , Jashpur, Jashpur Dsitrict, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr.R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.05.2026 1. Heard Mr.R.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.15 18:00:35 +0530 2 appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3176 of 2010 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings are that, the appellant was working as Assistant Grade–II in the Women & Child Development Department and was posted at Child Development Project, Manora, District Jashpur at the relevant time. While discharging his duties, certain complaints were received alleging financial irregularities in disbursement of honorarium to Anganwadi Workers and in utilization of funds allotted under various welfare schemes. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 16.08.2005 issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 13.10.2005 was issued to the appellant alleging, inter alia, that he, along with the Project Officer, had failed to deposit amounts meant for disbursement to Anganwadi Workers within time, had obtained acknowledgments for amounts higher than those actually paid, and had made lesser payments towards purchase of materials while accounting for higher amounts, thereby indulging in falsification and irregular maintenance of accounts. A departmental enquiry was instituted and an Inquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer were appointed. 3 4. The enquiry culminated in submission of a report holding the charges against the appellant to be proved. Based on the said report, the District Collector, Jashpur, acting as the Disciplinary Authority, passed order dated 06.01.2009 imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 3,04,206/- from the appellant and withholding of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect. The order of suspension was revoked and the appellant was reinstated in service with effect from 06.01.2009. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Ambikapur. The Appellate Authority, upon consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeal by order dated 12.01.2010 and affirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Challenging the aforesaid orders primarily on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, improper fixation of liability, and alleged disproportionate recovery, the appellant has filed the writ petition seeking quashment of the orders dated 06.01.2009 and 12.01.2010 and consequential reliefs, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Bench is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted 4 that learned Single Bench failed to consider the specific grounds raised by the appellant in the writ petition and passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of the material available on record. 7. Learned counsel submits that learned Single Bench erred in holding that the disciplinary authority could impose two punishments without conducting a proper and regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 16(1)(a) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 1966”). It is contended that Rule 16 clearly mandates compliance with the principles of natural justice, including providing adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee and conducting an enquiry wherever factual charges are disputed. It is argued that in the present case, a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant as well as respondent No. 4, and the appellant had already submitted his reply thereto. Thereafter, a notice dated 01.01.2009 was issued directing the appellant to appear before respondent No. 3 on 05.01.2009 for departmental enquiry, and immediately thereafter the punishment order was passed on 06.01.2009. This itself demonstrates that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of Rule 16(1) (a) of the Rules of 1966 and without granting reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the mandatory provisions of 5 Rule 16(1)(a) were not complied with before imposing two minor punishments upon the appellant. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj v Union of India, 1996 LawSuit(SC) 1567, wherein it has been held that even in cases involving minor penalties, an opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the delinquent employee, and where factual charges are denied, a proper enquiry is necessary as a minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. 9. It is submitted that the appellant had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 30.05.2006, but thereafter no enquiry proceedings were conducted for a considerable period. Suddenly, notice dated 01.01.2009 was issued directing him to appear on 05.01.2009, and the punishment order was passed on the very next day i.e., 06.01.2009. It is contended that there is nothing on record to establish proper service of the notice upon the appellant. Hence, the punishment order was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing and is violative of the principle of audi alteram partem. Learned counsel also submits that learned Single Bench wrongly observed that since the appellant had submitted his reply and failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing effectively, there was no breach of natural justice. In this regard, reliance is again placed on the judgment in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where factual allegations are denied by the delinquent employee, a regular enquiry becomes necessary. 6 10. It is further argued that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that after submission of the appellant’s reply dated 30.05.2006, no further notice was ever effectively communicated to him, though certain notices were allegedly issued in his name. The validity and service of such notices could only have been established through a regular departmental enquiry, which admittedly was never conducted. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned order passed by learned Single Bench as well as the punishment order dated 06.01.2009 deserve to be set aside. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2013 LawSuit(SC) 115 (para 12). 11. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge Bench is legal, proper, and in accordance with law, and therefore does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submits that adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellant during the disciplinary proceedings. The appellant had submitted his reply to the charge- sheet and was also issued notice for personal hearing; however, he failed to effectively avail the opportunity granted to him. It is contended that the disciplinary authority duly complied with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966, and since the penalties 7 imposed were minor penalties, a full-fledged regular enquiry was not mandatory in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was fully aware of the proceedings and participated therein; therefore, the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice is misconceived and untenable. 12. It is argued that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority, and the punishment order was passed after due consideration of the reply and material available on record. The respondents further contend that the judgment in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case in the manner sought to be argued by the appellant. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Deputy Advocate General prays for dismissal of the appeal. 13.We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 14. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present appeal. 15.Learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of the settled principles governing the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It is well established that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does 8 not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence or to substitute its own findings for that of the disciplinary authority. Interference is permissible only where the enquiry is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, statutory provisions, or where the findings are wholly perverse or based on no evidence. 16.In the present case, the enquiry officer recorded categorical findings regarding financial irregularities and improper maintenance of accounts attributable to the appellant. The disciplinary authority, after due consideration of the enquiry report and material available on record, imposed the punishment of recovery corresponding to the quantified loss caused to the State exchequer along with withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The appellate authority independently examined the matter and affirmed the said decision. 17.The contention of the appellant that two punishments could not have been imposed for the same misconduct does not merit acceptance. Learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the judgment relied upon by the appellant and correctly held that recovery of the financial loss suffered by the State is compensatory in nature and cannot be equated with a punitive penalty alone. The order of recovery was intended to reimburse the loss caused to public funds, whereas withholding of increment was imposed as a disciplinary consequence of the proved misconduct. Both operate in distinct fields and are legally permissible. 9 18.This Court also finds substance in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction so long as there exists some material to support the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Commissioner of Rural Development v. A.S. Jagannathan, 1999 (2) SCC 313 clearly reiterate the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and hold that the Court ought not to interfere with punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the Court or is manifestly arbitrary. 19.In the facts of the present case, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate, arbitrary, or violative of any statutory provision. The allegations pertain to financial irregularities involving public welfare funds meant for Anganwadi workers, and accountability in such matters must be strictly maintained. 20.So far as the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the record demonstrates that the appellant had participated in the proceedings and submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. No prejudice of such nature has been established which would vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings. 21.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after proper appreciation of facts and law. No ground for interference is 10 made out in the present writ appeal. 22.Consequently, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bidhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu