1 2026:CGHC:24145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1375 of 2021 1 - Nemichand Mairisha S/o Shri Nohar Singh, Aged About 46 Years Posted As Adpo, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Public Prosecution Directorate, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Prosecution Officer, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh)., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanshi Dubey and Shri Vimal Pathak, Advocates holding the brief of Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.6.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “1.1 To kindly quash and set-aside order (P/1) dated 25/08/2020. 1.2 To, kindly quash and set-aside the order (P/2) dated 27/03/2019 1.3 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs petitioner.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner who was posted as Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO), Baloda Bazar, was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non- cumulative effect vide order dated 27.3.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department on 9.5.2019 and same has been dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2020. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in a cryptic manner without assigning any reasons. It is also argued that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. vs. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 2 SCR 610 and the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of H.K. Lagar vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin 3 Bank and Ors., in WP(S) No. 5521 of 2012. She would pray to allow this petition. 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 penalty was imposed upon the petitioner after obtaining approval from the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. He would submit that minor penalty i.e. stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was inflicted and sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. According to him, it is not necessary for the Appellate Authority to assign reasons while dismissing the appeal. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6) Rule 23 of MP/ CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 deals with appeals, same is reproduced herein below: “23. Orders against which appeal lies.- Subject to the provisions of Rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely- (i) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or reviewing authority; (ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10; 4 (iii) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9; 7) A bare perusal of the above quoted provision would make it clear that the Appellate Authority is required to consider all the grounds raised by the delinquent employee in the memo of appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Kothagudem (supra), has held in paras 18 & 19 as follows: “18.Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also having regard to the detailed manner in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt with the matter, including the explanation given regarding the disbursement of the money received by the respondent, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar duty was cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department of Forests in the State. Unfortunately, even the revisional authority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service. 19. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” 5 8) In the matter of H.K. Lagar (supra), this Court has held in paras 31 to 34 as follows: “31. Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the Disciplinary Authority, it may not be speaking order, but the Authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind in compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction particularly when the rules required application of mind on several factors and several contentions had been raised and he was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the Court reviewing its decision to ascertain as to whether it had applied its mind to the relevant factors which the rule required to do. (See 13 (2008) 3 SCC 469 14 (2001) 5 SCC 340 Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2006) 4 SCC 713). 32. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the legal position enumerated hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the appellate authority has not assigned any reason to indicate that it has applied its mind on the grounds raised and not even a brief reason has been indicated in the appellate order to say that due procedure as per the regulation has been followed while conducting departmental enquiry and further that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on record and the penalty imposed is just and proper. As such, the Appellate Authority has failed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. 33. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid legal discussion, the impugned order of petitioner's removal from service dated 24/05/2012 (Annexure P/8) as well as the appellate order dated 03/09/2012 (Annexure P/9) are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 Bank is directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits. 34. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).” 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the manner in which the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner, order Annexure-P/1 dated 25.8.2020 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to decided the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking 6 order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10) Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi