1 / 22 2026:CGHC:23465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 17.02.2026 Order Delivered on 21.05.2026 Order Uploaded on 21.05.2026 WPS No. 2397 of 2025 Ram Sudin Sahu S/o Late Shri Ganpat Ram Sahu Aged About 57 Years The Then Revenue Inspector, R/o Village Manipur, Mathpara, Post Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner/director, Land Records Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, First Floor, Block-2, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, Pratappur Road, Village Sargava, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.21 20:13:27 +0530 2 / 22 4 - The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate along with Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State :Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. Petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India has questioned the legality and sustainability of order dated 12th March 2025 whereby appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (delinquent employee) under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1966”) affirming the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner of major penalty of compulsorily retiring the petitioner vide order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner while posted as Revenue Inspector (Land Records) Ambikapur, District- Sarguja aggrieved with his non-promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Land Records) wrote letters to Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Govt. Chhattisgarh Raipur on 02.01.2021, 05.04.2021 and 16.07.2021. Respondent No.1, Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department wrote a letter to Collector, Land Records Branch, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja on 18.08.2021, pleading therein that according to Circulars issued by the 3 / 22 General Administration Department (GAD) dated 06.02.2014 and 29.03.2021 correspondences is to be made by a government servant through proper channel and not directly and it is further mentioned in the circular that strict action is to be taken against those government servants violating the aforementioned circulars. Petitioner has violated the direction issued by the GAD time to time, which is not proper and directed to take action against the petitioner for his making correspondences with higher authorities in violation of Circulars issued by the State Govt. 3. Collector (Land Records) thereafter had issued charge memo to petitioner on 29.11.2021 levelling two charges. On the same date i.e. 29.11.2021 appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 09.01.2023 concluding that both the charges levelled against the petitioner found proved and recommended for withholding of two early increments with cumulative effect. Copy of enquiry report is filed as Annexure P-7. Report was submitted before the Collector, who, upon considering the report submitted by Enquiry Officer, has issued notice to petitioner on 11.05.2023 along with copy of enquiry report and called for reply. Petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter Collector Sarguja has recorded that reply submitted by petitioner is not satisfactory and recorded that major penalty is to be imposed, but taking note of Rule 9 & 10 of Rules of 1966 that Collector is having jurisdiction to impose minor penalty, sent the proposal to Commissioner, Sarguja Division Ambikapur for imposing major penalty under Rule 10 of Rules of 1966 vide its letter dated 24.11.2023. Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, thereafter, forwarded the said proposal to Commissioner, 4 / 22 Land Records, Chhattisgarh making certain observation therein vide its letter dated 19.01.2024. Vide order Annexure P-10 dated 26.06.2024, Commissioner Land Records Chhattisgarh Raipur has imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. Order of punishment was put to challenge by the petitioner in an appeal before respondent No.1 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2025 (Anexure P-1) against which petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(a) To set aside and quash the impugned order dated 12/03/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by State of Chhattisgarh, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. (b) To set aside and quash the order dated 26/06/2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by Director, Land Records, Chhattisgarh. (c) Cost of the present petitioner may also be awarded. (d) Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order of punishment was passed without following due process of law. He contended that proposal of Presenting Officer was to impose penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, but, punishment of compulsory retirement which is major penalty is inflicted. He contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner of any financial irregularity or any irregularity committed by him causing major loss to Department. Allegation against petitioner is 5 / 22 only of making direct correspondences to higher authority that too raising grievance of his non-promotion. He also contended that order passed by appellate authority was not a speaking order considering reply to show cause notice submitted by petitioner. It is his contention that Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1965”) will not be attracted in the facts of case. In the letter written by petitioner, there is no mention of name of any politician and it is not written under letter head of ‘Union’. He also contended that there is no material available in entire enquiry report so as to made the petitioner liable for major penalty of compulsory retirement. 5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing submission of learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order of punishment issued against the petitioner is after following due process of law. In the departmental enquiry proceeding, petitioner was served with charge sheet to which he replied, participated in the departmental enquiry, statement has been recorded and thereby given proper opportunity to petitioner to defend himself. Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have acted strictly in accordance with law, sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner but he failed to make out any case in his favour. She contended that impugned order of punishment and appellate order is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. In support of her contention, she places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. 6 / 22 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply to argument of State counsel has submitted that imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is in violation of Article 311 of Constitution of India, as Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report has proposed imposition of penalty of withholding of increments. Disciplinary Authority if came to conclusion that penalty proposed by the Enquiry Officer is not acceptable and petitioner is liable for major penalty then the Disciplinary Authority ought to have issued show cause notice as to why major penalty should not be imposed and therefore imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is in violation of provision under Article 311 of Constitution of India. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of writ petition. 8. Annexure P-3 is letter written by respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary State Govt. Revenue and Disaster Management Department directing the Collector to take action against petitioner for violating the circulars issued by the State Govt. dated 06.02.2014 and 29.03.2021 which prescribes for correspondences to be made by the Govt. servant to higher authority, through proper channel. Based on letter, Collector issued charge memo to petitioner vide Annexure P-5 dated 29.11.2021 levelling two charges, that, petitioner wrote letters to higher officials on 02.01.2021, 05.04.2021 and 16.07.2021 directly without prior permission of the competent authority on many times, due to which it caused hindrance in working. Aforesaid act of petitioner is misconduct under Rule 3 Read with Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965. Second charge levelled against the petitioner is of similar 7 / 22 allegations and mentioning that writing letters dated 02.01.2021, 05.04.2021 and 16.07.2021 is in violation of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965. On the same date, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. Along with charge memo, only three letters written by petitioner which are forming part of charge No.1 and letter written by Secretary to take action have been enclosed. 9. Enquiry Report is forming part of Annexure P-6 along with covering letter dated 09.01.2023. In the Enquiry Report, Enquiry Officer extracted both the charges levelled against petitioner, extracted reply submitted by petitioner to charge memo, extracted summary submitted by Presenting Officer and thereafter in conclusion after taking note of summary submitted by Presenting Officer, reply to summary submitted by petitioner and contents of letter as also statement of the petitioner (delinquent employee) concluded that the petitioner could not able to prove that allegation levelled against him to be false. In the conclusion he also recommended for imposing of punishment of withholding of two yearly increments with cumulative effect and further recorded that he is in agreement with the summary submitted by Presenting Officer. Forwarded the enquiry report for further action. 10. Enquiry Officer himself has not submitted its report with independent application of mind, but have mentioned that he is in agreement with summary/report of Presenting Officer . Said proceeding of Enquiry Officer is contrary to law. 11. Based on the enquiry report, Collector has issued notice along with copy of enquiry report to petitioner vide Annexure P-7 dated 8 / 22 11.05.2023. Petitioner submitted reply to notice. However, Collector vide letter dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure P-8) had forwarded entire proceedings to Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur observing that reply submitted by delinquent employee is not satisfactory, against him both the charges have been found proved and major penalty is to be imposed. Under Rule 9 &10 of Rules of 1966, Collector is empowered to impose minor penalty and proposed for major penalty under Rule 10 of Rules of 1966. Commissioner Sarguja Division Ambikapur by its letter dated 19.01.2024 Annexure P-9 written to Commissioner Land Records Chhattisgarh, has considered the other material also which was not forming part of charge memo, enquiry report or letter of Collector and further added that apart from finding proved of two charges and also considering old record of petitioner, major penalty/primary penalty is proposed. Based on recommendation made by Collector as also by Commissioner of Division, Commissioner Land Records has passed order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement. 12. In the facts of case and submission of learned counsel for petitioner that procedure prescribed under Rule 1966 is followed or not is a consideration of the Court. Charge memo placed on record as Ex.P-5 would show that there is violation of Rule 3 read with Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965. 13. Rule 3 and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965 are extracted below for ready reference: 9 / 22 “ 3. General. (1)Every Government servant shall at all times :- (i)maintain absolute integrity; (ii)maintain devotion to duty; and (iii)do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. (2)(i)Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority. (ii)No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of the powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except that when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible. Explanation. - Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be construed as empowering the Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions, are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities. x x x x x x x x x 21. Canvassing of non-official or other influence.- No Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government.” 10 / 22 14. Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965 extracted above clearly mentions that a Govt. servant will not bring or attempt to bring any political or other influence to bear upon any superior authority . In the case at hand, there is no such allegation against the petitioner but for that he wrote letters directly to higher authority and subject matter of letter is only of grievance of petitioner of his non-promotion. Along with charge memo, petitioner was served with document mentioning therein which is the letter of respondent No.1 dated 18.08.2021 and three letters written by petitioner. No document is placed in record like circular issued by the State Govt. which is relied upon by the department in coming to conclusion that charges levelled against petitioner has been proved. 15. Main charge levelled against the petitioner is that act of writing letters by petitioner is in violation of Circulars issued by the State Govt. Circulars considered by Enquiry Officer are dated 6th February 2014 and 29th March 2021. Both the circulars of State Govt. have not been enclosed along with other documents as mentioned in list of documents as part of charge memo. In the facts of case where charges levelled against petitioner is of his act to be in contravention of Circular issued by State Govt., said material /document is also to be handed over to petitioner, to prove that conduct of petitioner, in writing letters to higher officials is in contravention of circulars. 16. It is not the case that copy of Circulars issued by State Govt. were made available at any point of time to the petitioner who was holding Class-III post. 11 / 22 17. In the proceeding of departmental enquiry, requirement under law is, to provide proper opportunity to delinquent employee to defend against the charges levelled against him and in absence of providing all material sought to be proved against him, in the opinion of this Court in the eqnuiry proceedings, petitioner has not been given fair opportunity to defend. 18. Rule 14 of Rules of 1966 provides for procedure for imposing penalties. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 talks of preparation of charge sheet, which is relevant in the facts of case are extracted below for ready reference: “14. Procedure for imposing penalties. (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up- -(i)the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; (ii)a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain :- (a)a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant; (b)a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.” 12 / 22 19. Sub-rule (3) (ii) clearly provides for statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and sub-rule (3) (ii) (b) provides for list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiate. 20. In case at hand, charge levelled against the petitioner is that petitioner wrote letters to the superior authority in contravention of circulars issued by the State Govt. Both the circulars have not been made part of list of documents. When the charge levelled against petitioner is based on two documents which are not forming part of enquiry then it can only be said that procedure provided under Rule 14 of the Rules 1966 is not complied with. Rule 14 (14) provides for production of prosecution evidence and witnesses by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved. In case at hand prosecution has not examined any witness but for submitting summary by Presenting Officer as is forming part of enquiry report. Rule 14 (15) provides for production of additional document and witnesses by the Presenting Officer on behalf of Disciplinary Authority which was not included in list given to Govt. servant and thereafter it comes for production of defence evidence and witnesses and Rule 14 (18) provides for examination of delinquent employee. 21. In the aforementioned facts of case, more particularly in not enclosing the documents forming basis of departmental enquiry along with list of documents forming part of charge sheet, which is stated to have been contravened by the petitioner employee and not examining any witness by the department in facts of case, in opinion of this Court, enquiry is in contravention of due procedure as 13 / 22 prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. 22. Providing reasonable and fair opportunity to delinquent employee is one of the important facet in the departmental enquiry to be conducted under the Rules of 1966. Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of 1966 envisages that where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a government servant under this Rule and Rule 15, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge, a statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall consist:- a- a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the government servant; b- a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom, articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1986) 3 SCC 229 while considering challenge to the order of dismissal of an employee observed thus: “10. …..The extracts quoted hereinabove leave no room for doubt that the disciplinary authority refused to furnish to the appellant copies of documents and copies of statements. When a Government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity-to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare 14 / 22 his defence, cross examine the witness, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible ?”……….. 24. In case of Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India (through General Manager, Eastern Railways) reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 518, Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under : “4…..Article 311 of the Constitution requires that reasonable opportunity of defence must be afforded to a government servant before he is awarded major punishmust of dimissal. It further contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the rules in a just and fair manner. The procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the document if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence. If findings are recorded against the government servant placing reliance on a document which may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereof may not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded, that would contravene principles of natural justice rendering the enquiry, and the consequential order of punishment illegal and void.”…... 25. In the case at hand, it is not the case that the documents mentioned in imputation of the articles of charge, nor referred to nor relied upon, but the basis of imposing punishment is on the allegation that petitioner has contravened the circulars as mentioned therein and therefore those documents were important and necessary to be 15 / 22 supplied to the petitioner (delinquent employee) to meet out the charged levelled against him. 26. Though Rule 14 does not specify mentioning of penalty which can be imposed if charge is found proved, but when it is specifically mentioned in imputation of charge that petitioner made liable himself for punishment under Rule 10 (iv) of Rules of 1966, it is to be presumed that delinquent employee participated in the enquiry proceedings with that mind set. If major penalty is to be inflicted instead of minor penalty as mentioned in charge memo, it definitely had caused prejudice to the petitioner, because he was not afforded opportunity to defend himself against charge attracting major penalty. 27. Any Govt. servant when issued charge memo to face departmental enquiry, he/she should be given proper and fair opportunity to defend. 28. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 has observed as under: “20. A reading of the enquiry report also shows that the respondent herein was not furnished with the required documents. The Department's witnesses were not examined in his presence. Though the respondent who was the writ petitioner specifically stated so in the affidavit before the High Court in the writ proceedings, those averments were specifically controverted in the reply-affidavit filed by the Department. Mere denial for the sake of denial is not an answer to the specific allegations made in the affidavit. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that after submission of the report by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority, the respondent herein was furnished with the copy of the said report along with all the relied upon documents. 16 / 22 When all these infirmities were specifically pleaded and brought to the notice of the appellate authority (i.e. Forest Conservator), he rejected the same but has not pointed out the relevant materials from the records of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority to support his decision. Hence, the appellate authority has also committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the respondent.” 29. Next question which is germane to facts of case is that in the articles of charges forming part of charge memo there is mention that the petitioner has made himself liable for punishment under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1966. 30. Rule 10 of Rules 1966 is under Part -V of the Rules of 1966 which deals with “penalty and disciplinary authorities”. Rule 10 mentions that following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Govt. servant. Under minor penalties, following is provided : “ (i) Censure; (ii) withholding of his promotion; (iii) Recovery from his pay of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to Govt. by negligence or breach of order; (iv) withholding of increments or stagnation allowance.” 31. In the article of charge, charge levelled against petitioner stating that petitioner made himself liable under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1966 would show that charges have been levelled for imposing minor penalty. Petitioner has been imposed penalty of compulsory retirement which is under major penalty, which starts from Rule 10 17 / 22 (v). From bare perusal of charge memo charge leveled against the petitioner was for minor penalty only. One of ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that charges have been leveled holding the petitioner liable for minor penalty than imposition of major penalty without giving any notice in this regard is in violation of provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 32. Perusal of enquiry report submitted by Enquiry Officer, which is annexed as Annexure P-6, would show that Department has not examined any witness to prove any document but the Presenting Officer has submitted summary only with recommendation to propose penalty of withholding two annual increments. Circulars issued by State Govt. which are basis to make liable the petitioner to face enquiry were not part of the charge memo. The Circulars as mentioned above i.e. circulars dated 6th February 2014 and 29th March 2021 were not enclosed along with charge memo, along with list of documents forming part of charge memo along with nor the Presenting Officer has placed it before the Enquiry Officer. In absence of said document available before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer could not have concluded that the charges levelled against petitioner has been proved. From enquiry report it appears that Enquiry Officer has relied upon summary submitted by Presenting Officer without there being any documentary proof of contents of said Circular issued by State Govt. and examination of any witness in this regard. 33. Enquiry Officer has only recorded that in the above he is in agreement with report of Presenting Officer and submitted its report. 18 / 22 34. Conclusion recorded by Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report would show that it mentions that Presenting Officer has made proposal for withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and from perusal of last two lines of report it appears that there is no independent application of mind of Enquiry Officer to come to conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. 35. Collector came to conclusion that major penalty is to be imposed, shows that as he was in disagreement with report so far as it relates to proposal of punishment and the proposed penalty for which charge memo was issued, then minimum requirement under law is of giving show cause notice to delinquent employee mentioning as to why major penalty should not be imposed upon him. From letter written by Collector dated 24.11.2023 Annexure P-8 it is not appearing that Collector issued such notice to petitioner/delinquent employee. Commissioner Sarguja Division Ambikapur has also not issued such letter and therefore imposition of major penalty against the petitioner is bad in law. Even in order Annexure P-10 issued by respondent No.2 it is only mentioned that letter dated 09.04.2024 was sent to petitioner along with enquiry report and sought reply from petitioner/delinquent employee on enquiry report to which he submitted reply, but there is no mention of issuance of show cause notice as to why major penalty should not be imposed instead of minor penalty for which charge memo was issued. 36. From aforementioned facts of case it is apparent that proper procedure as provided under Rule 14 of Rules of 1966 has not been followed which vitiates the enquiry conducted against petitioner. 19 / 22 37. Now I will consider whether the punishment imposed upon petitioner of compulsory retirement is proper or disproportionate in the facts of case and nature of charge levelled against him. 38. This Court is aware with regard to scope of interference with the punishment imposed upon delinquent employee by the department to be very limited. Only in exceptional circumstances where the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee on charges levelled against him, shocks conscience of Court, then only the Court can interfere with the punishment. Allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner wrote three letters to respondent No.1 i.e. Senior Officer in department raising his grievance of his non-promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Land Records) from the post of Revenue Inspector. Admittedly, petitioner is Class -III employee and what is reflecting from contents of letters forming part of records is that he was aggrieved with his non-promotion. It is not the allegation against the petitioner in the charge memo that petitioner has written anything out of the context of subject of his non-promotion or written anything which is unbecoming of Govt. servant. However, even though when the charge memo issued to petitioner is for imposition of minor penalty under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules 1966, respondent authorities have imposed upon him major penalty of compulsory retirement. 39. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Om Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union Of India reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386, has held as under : “28. By “proportionality”, we mean the question 20 / 22 whether, while regulating exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least-restrictive choice of measures has been made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as the case may be. Under the principle, the court will see that the legislature and the administrative authority “maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purpose which they were intended to serve”. The legislature and the administrative authority are, however, given an area of discretion or a range of choices but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is for the court. That is what is meant by proportionality.” 40. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 while considering the case of appellant therein against the punishment of compulsory retirement observed thus: “34. The proved charges remained only Charges 4 and 6 and in both the cases the misconduct seems to be of an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a serious nature. It was not the case of the Department that the appellant had taken the escort vehicle with him. There was only one vehicle which was an official vehicle for his use and Charge 6 stood partly proved. In view thereof, the punishment of compulsory retirement shocks the conscience of the Court and by no stretch of imagination can it be held to be proportionate or commensurate to the delinquency committed by and proved against the appellant. The only punishment which could be held to be commensurate to the delinquency 21 / 22 was as proposed by the Government of India to withhold two increments for one year without cumulative effect. It would have been appropriate to remand the case to the disciplinary authority to impose the appropriate punishment. However, considering the chequered history of the case and in view of the fact that the appellant had remained under suspension for 11 months, suffered the order of dismissal for 19 months and would retire after reaching the age of superannuation in December 2013, the facts of the case warrant that this Court should substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement to the punishment proposed by the Union of India i.e. withholding of two increments for one year without having cumulative effect.” 41. In the case at hand also, allegation levelled against the petitioner is of misconduct of administrative nature that he wrote letters directly to higher officials, and not through proper channel (through Head of Office). The letter, written is only of raising grievance against his non- promotion and there is no other allegation levelled against him in the charge memo. Imposition of punishment is only on the basis of allegation in the charge memo, documents which is said to be contravened i.e. circular dated 06.02.2014 and 29.03.2021, and report submitted by Presenting Officer. No witness was examined to prove charge. Petitioner was not supplied the copy of documents which formed basis to initiate departmental enquiry i.e. the two circulars. Charge memo issued with imputation mentioning that petitioner made himself liable for punishment under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1966. However, major penalty is imposed under Rule 10 (vii) without issuing show cause notice. 22 / 22 42. In view of the above, punishment imposed by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-10) and affirmed by appellate authority in its order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) is not sustainable. 43. In the aforementioned facts of case where charge memo is issued mentioning that petitioner made himself liable for punishment under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1966 only, but major penalty under Rule 10 (vii) is inflicted, and nature of misconduct alleged, documents forming basis to invite enquiry is not forming part of charge memo, witnesses not examined by department and other discussions as made above, in the opinion of this Court, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order of punishment and the order of appellate authority are set aside/quashed . The petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits including continuity of service. Respondent authority shall take decision on back-wages to be paid to petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing. Respondents will be at liberty to initiate enquiry from the stage it got vitiated, if they so desire. 44. Writ petition is allowed in above terms. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen