1 2026:CGHC:25495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4279 of 2022 * - Amit Dewangan S/o Shri Saroj Kumar Dewangan, aged about 45 years, R/o 69/1004, Shanti Vihar Colony, Danganiyan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Block-2, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, (Through its Board of Directors) Block No. 07 “A”, Second Floor, Sector-IV, Office Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Block No. 07 “A”, Second Floor, Sector-IV, Office Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Block No. 07 “A”, Second Floor, Sector-IV, Office Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipru, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Mr. Anish Tiwari and Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 To issue appropriate writ/ order/ direction commanding authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the petitioner’s case. 10.2 To issue appropriate writ/ order/ direction quashing the impugned orders dated 01.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) and Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.01 15:13:31 +0530 2 18.08.2021 (Annexure P-2), since the same are arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and without any justification. 10.3 To issue appropriate writ/ order/ direction quashing the impugned inquiry report (Annexure P-3) since the same has been submitted mechanically and without showing any application of mind. 10.4 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon’ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding post of Deputy Assistant General Manager (I.T.) under the respondents- Corporation. On 15.06.2020, the Corporation invited request for proposal from interested bidders for ‘Selection of System Integration For Providing Services for Implementation of Adhar enabled Public Distribution System’. The bid submission started on 17.07.2020 and last date was 14.09.2020 (5:00 pm) and the entire process was conducted Online under Technical Management and Consultancy of Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotions Society (ChiPS). It was alleged that the petitioner on the last date of bid made certain changes in the Online bid submission form as additional tab was created in the Part “C” of the bid relating to financial bid. Such act of Corporation was considered as corrigendum. Complaints were made by the bidders alleging that corrigendum was issued on the last date and it would prejudice their interest. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.12.2020 and his Head Quarter was changed and thereafter show cause notice was issued. He filed reply and denied allegations. The department contemplated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 27.01.2021. The petitioner filed reply to article of charge on 01.02.2021 and requested personal hearing. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer completed an inquiry and submitted its 3 reports before the Disciplinary Authority/respondent No. 4. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of 02 annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WPS No. 6099/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2021, wherein the petitioner was granted liberty to prefer departmental appeal in accordance with law. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 15.11.2021, which has been dismissed vide order dated 01.01.2022 and thereafter this petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal. He would submit that specific ground was raised that on the date of incident, the petitioner was not present in the office and he did not use its Login ID/ Password/Digital Signature and this fact has not been considered either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority. He would further contend that there was no material to establish the fact that the petitioner was present in the office on said date and he was the person who issued corrigendum. It is argued by the Mr. Kshitij Sharma that the Appellate Authority passed a cryptic order and failed to assign sufficient reasons. He would pray to quash the said order. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 would oppose. Mr. Anish Tiwari would submit that in the matter of disciplinary enquiry, the Court has to examine and determine as to whether the inquiry was held by the Competent Authority; rules of natural justice are complied with or not and whether the findings are based on some evidence or not? He would submit that 4 in the present case, it is nowhere stated that rules of natural justice were not complied with or the inquiry was not conducted by the Competent Authority. He would submit that the Disciplinary Authority recorded findings based on evidence and the petitioner could not rebut those pieces of evidence and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. He would also contend that there is concurrent findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, therefore, also this petition is not maintainable. Mr. Tiwari would contend that according to service rules, the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to prefer second appeal and he has not availed such remedy. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, article of charge was issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2021. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 06.03.2021. Though the applications were moved to supply documents, but the true fact is that the petitioner participated in departmental enquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted its report before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority concurring with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer inflicted penalty of stoppage of 02 increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 18.08.2021. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority on 15.11.2021. Perusal of the memo of appeal would show that a specific 5 ground was taken by the petitioner that on date of incident i.e. 14.09.2020, he was not present in the office and he did not use his Login ID/Passward or Digital Signature to issue a corrigendum and the Inquiry Officer failed to establish presence of petitioner in the office on the said date. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner considered facts of the case only and failed to discuss or decide the grounds raised in memo of appeal. The Appellate Authority perused the documents, but it is nowhere concluded that the petitioner was present in the office on 14.09.2020. It appears that in cryptic manner the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 7. In the matter of Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 2 SCR 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Appellate Authority is required to consider all the grounds raised by the delinquent employee in the memo of appeal. The relevant paragraphs no. 18 and 19 are reproduced herein below:- “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 6 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.” 8. In the matter of Ajai Kumar Shrivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph no. 25, held that when the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for alleged misconduct, the court has to examine competency of authority, compliance of rules of natural justice and as to whether the findings are based on some evidence. The relevant paragraph no. 25 is reproduced herein below:- “25 When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.” 9. Rule 23 of 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 7 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; (iii) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9.” 10. Bare reading of above-quoted provisions would make clear that the Appellate Authority is required to consider the grounds raised by the delinquent employee in appeal and the delinquent employee is entitled to know at least the mind of the Appellate or Revisional Authority in dismissing his appeal 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 Disciplinary Authority. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 01.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide appeal afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order on all grounds raised by the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Appellate Authority within a period of 90 days from date of submission of copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti