1 2026:CGHC:24332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8653 of 2022  Vishwajit Devnath S/o Late Nani Gopal Devnath Aged About 48 Years Secretary, Village Panchayat Ghodagaon, R/o Naya Bazar, Tahsil Pankhanjur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Uttar Bastar District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer - Jila Panchayat Kanker, District Utter Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Kanker District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhatisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, P.L. For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 17.6.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.17 17:06:37 +0530 2 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ quashing/set-aside the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure P/1) whereby the penalty of one increment with non-cumulative effect has been withheld and further pursuance to above the attachment order/posting order whereby the services of the petitioner has been attached to office of C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda as per annexure P/2 be quashed. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court further may be pleased to direct the authorities to allow to work the petitioner as Secretary of Gram Panchayat Ghodagaon Distt. Utter Baster Kanker (C.G.). 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner who was posted as Secretary in Gram Panchayat Ghodagaon was served with a show-cause notice on 12.9.2022 and allegation was made to the effect that he remained absent from duties unauthorizedly for period of 57 days. Petitioner filed reply and thereafter, Chief Executive Officer - Jila Panchayat Kanker inflicted penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 10.11.2022. 3) Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of petitioner are governed by Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1999’] and respondent No. 3 has inflicted minor penalty upon petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of Rules of 1999. He further submits that the order 3 impugned is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied and thereafter final decision was taken by the respondent No. 3. He further submits that there was no need to conduct inquiry according to Rule 8 of Rules of 1999 and this petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed. 5) Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned State counsel submits that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7) Admittedly, vide order dated 10.11.2022, respondent No. 3 imposed a minor penalty on the petitioner, directing the stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect. Rule 8 of Rules of 1999 deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rules 8(1)(a) states that the order imposing penalty can be passed only after the person charged is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which such action is proposed to be taken and is given an opportunity to make a representation. Rule 8(1)(b) states that such representation shall be taken in to consideration by the disciplinary authority. 4 8) In the present case, show-cause notice issued to the petitioner was duly replied but the respondent No. 3 failed to consider the grounds or reasons assigned in the reply and the impugned order merely states that the allegations against the petitioner were found proved. Thus, it can be safely concluded that respondent No. 3 did not pass the order in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules of 1999. 9) Therefore, the order impugned being not sustainable in the eyes is hereby quashed and the instant writ petition stands allowed. 10) However, respondents No. 3 and 4 would be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of Rules of 1999, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a