1 2026:CGHC:22344 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5510 of 2022 A.G. Sinnarkar S/o Shri Gopal Sinnarkar Aged About 64 Years Erstwhile Sub- Engineer, R/o C/o Aruna Sinnarkar, A/41, Vidyut Nagar, Near Sai Mangalam Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Under Secretary Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure P/1), in the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was posted as a Sub-Engineer in Tandula Water Resources Sub-Division No. 04. He submitted the estimate for cement concrete lining work of the Tandula Main Canal, wherein he proposed a free board of 0.60 meters instead of the prescribed free board of 0.50/0.45/0.40 meters, in violation of the applicable technical guidelines and Technical Circular No. 19 issued by the Irrigation Department. The said proposal was found to be contrary to the prescribed norms and resulted in an additional financial burden upon the State Government to the extent of Rs. 1.47 crores. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 06.10.2019 was issued to the petitioner directing him to explain his conduct. After due consideration of the matter and in accordance with the applicable service rules, Respondent No. 3, under the instructions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, passed an order dated 21.12.2022 imposing a penalty of deduction of 5% of the petitioner’s pension for a period of one year. The said action was taken in view of the petitioner’s misconduct and violation of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, and in exercise of powers under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2021, whereby punishment of deduction of 5% of the petitioner’s pension for a period of one year was imposed without holding a departmental enquiry. She would further submit that, according to Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, no inquiry 3 was conducted and even no opinion was formed by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a departmental inquiry; therefore, the order passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 21.12.2021 is bad in law. She has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Siemens Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 Lawsuit (SC) 1110, and O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India, reported in 1996 Lawsuit (SC) 1567. She would contend that the petitioner, in his reply to show cause notice, had denied the allegations; therefore, the Disciplinary Authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry strictly in accordance with law. She would pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner while posted as Sub-Engineer, committed irregularity and therefore, a show-cause notice was issued which was duly replied and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted penalty upon him. He would contend that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and thus, the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 deals with the ‘procedure for imposing minor penalties and same reads as under : “16.Procedure for imposing minor penalties- (1)Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after- 4 (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e)consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary [(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub- rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years of to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.] (2)The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i)a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii)a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii)his representation, if any; (iv)the evidence produced during the inquiry; 5 (v)the advice of the commission, if /any; (vi)the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vii)the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.” A bare reading of above-quoted provision would make it clear that the authority concerned is required to conduct an inquiry according to the provisions of Sub-rule 3 to 23 of the Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, while imposing minor penalty. 7. In the matter of M/s. Siemens Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. Relevant para 10 is reproduced herein below : “10. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause.” 6 8. In the matter of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the charges are levelled against a Government servant and charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an inquiry should also be called for. 9. Further, in the present case, respondent No.3 failed to comply with the provision of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 as no inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 was conducted. Relevant para 3 is reproduced herein below : “3. 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.” 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the Disciplinary Authority has inflicted penalty of 5% deduction in pension for a period of one year, which is a minor penalty and no departmental inquiry was conducted in consonance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966, therefore, in my opinion, order passed by respondent No.3 dated 21.12.2021 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, order dated 21.12.2021 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. 7 12. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim