1 2026:CGHC:23998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3146 of 2022  Yamita Singh W/o Krishna Kumar Singh, Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Patwari Tahsil Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildar, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.06 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure P/1). 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow all the benefits of increments to the petitioner. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.18 18:02:49 +0530 2 pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was holding the post of Patwari at the relevant time in the year 2022. He would further submit that after receiving complaint, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba without issuing any show-cause notice and without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 16 of the C.G. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1966”) inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 18.04.2022. He referred to Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966 and stated that it is mandatory on the part of the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority to comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966. He would submit that the the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. He would pray to quash the order. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner remained absent from the headquarter without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, therefore, a minor penalty was imposed upon her. He would further submit that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Rule – 16 of the Rules, 1966 reads as under :- 3 “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- (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.] [Inserted by Notification No. C-6-30-92-3-I, dated 22-6-1992.] 4 (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; (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.” 6. From a bare perusal of the above-stated rule, it is quite vivid that the enquiry officer has to follow the provisions contemplated under Rules 14(3) to 14(23) while imposing the minor penalty. In the present case, no show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner, no article of charge was issued, documents were also not provided. It appears that neither an enquiry officer nor a presenting officer was appointed, and thus, there was non-compliance of Rule – 16 of Rules, 1966. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions contained in Rule – 16 of Rules, 1966, it can safely be held that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect without holding a formal enquiry as prescribed in Rule – 16 of Rules, 1966, therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority Annexure P/1 dated 18.04.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, instant petition is 5 hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant