1 2026:CGHC:21973 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5318 of 2021 1 - Jaybhan Singh Rathore S/o G.I. Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Hig, Sdd- 2, Shri Shri Ravishankar Housing Board Colony, Lal Baag, Jagdalpur, C.G., Pin 494001, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, (C.G.), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Siddharth Ojha, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 11.05.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records of this case. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an order quashing the penalty imposing order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 01 whereby imposed a minor penalty by withholding 3 increments without cumulative effect as the order passed is arbitrary and unsustainable in eyes of law. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an order quashing the order dated 27.08.2020 (ANNEXURE P/2) passed by the Respondent authorities confirming minor penalty by withholding 3 increments without cumulative effect." 2) Brief facts of the present case, are as under:- (a) A departmental proceeding was initiated against Shri Jaibhan Singh Rathore/petitioner, the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon, District Kondagaon. A show cause notice dated 30.04.2015 was issued by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, alleging unauthorized construction of Narangi Nala-2 project and execution of watershed development work without obtaining proper technical and administrative approval. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.01.2016, Additional Collector, Kondagaon was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. (b) Two charges were framed against the petitioner: first, unauthorized construction of the project approved in the year 3 2012-13; and second, execution of work without administrative approval, in violation of the instructions issued under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme. (c) The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.06.2016, wherein Charge No.2 was held to be partially proved. Subsequently, a copy of the inquiry report along with a show cause notice was supplied to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply. The Commissioner, Bastar Division found the reply unsatisfactory and forwarded the matter to the State Government for a final decision. (d) Upon consideration of the matter, the State Government took a provisional decision to impose the penalty of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect and sought concurrence of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. (e) The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, vide communication dated 27.10.2018, accorded approval for the proposed punishment holding that the petitioner had violated Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. Consequently, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Rule 10(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, imposed the penalty of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner and disposed of the departmental proceedings. 4 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses and thus, discharged the functions of the Presenting Officer. He would contend that according to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘CCA Rules, 1966) such a practice is not permissible. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Kori vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 295. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner failed to establish any prejudice caused to him. He would contend that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. It is also argued that no objection was raised before the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6) The Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui in 2005 (1) LLJ 931 held in paragraphs 7 and 16, as under: 5 “7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognized facets: (i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias, (ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor, (iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator, (iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator, (v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges, (vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others, (vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated.” 16. We may summarise the principles thus: (i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor. (ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non- appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry. (iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross- examine such witnesses on those clarifications. 6 (iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry. (v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry. Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may.” 7) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the fact that the Enquiry Officer performed function of the Presenting Officer, the order imposing the penalty of withholding three increments with non-cumulative effect, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate 7 departmental enquiry proceedings strictly in accordance with law and to take an appropriate decision, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi