1 2026:CGHC:26989 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON : 22/06/2026 ORDER DELIVERED ON : 02 /07/2026 WP(S) No. 9695 of 2023 Hemnidhi Patel S/o Shri Surajcharan Patel Aged About 55 Years, Terminated Patwari, P.H. No.38, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Presently Resident Of Village and Post Gorra, Police Station Kotra Road, Tahsil Pussaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsiya / Disciplinary Authority Tahsil Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Tahsildar-Cum-Departmental Enquiry Officer Tahsil Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. The Naib Tahsildar Kharsiya-Cum-Departmental Enquiry Presenting Officer, Tahsil Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents. WITH WPS No. 9767 of 2023 Sukhan Say Sidar S/o Shri Gotharam Sidar, Aged About 61 Years, Terminated Patwari, P.H. No. 29, Tahsil Lailunga, District- Raigarh, Presently R/o Village Rudukela, Post, Police Station and Tahsil Lailunga, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.02 14:36:30 +0530 2 -Versus- 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lailunga/disciplinary Authority Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Incharge Officer Of Land Record Branch Raigarh-Cum-Departmental Enquiry Officer, Collectorate, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6. The Tahsildar Lailunga-Cum-Departmental Enquiry Presenting Officer, Tahsil Lailunga, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioners : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Respondents /State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG with Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) C.A.V. Order 1. Since both the petitions involve common questions of law and fact, and arise from almost similar factual backgrounds wherein the petitioners were terminated on the same date for identical reasons, both petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By way of the present petition the petitioners are seeking following reliefs:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the respondent No.2 (Commissioner) in which order dated 21.12.2020 passed by respondent No.3 (Collector) and order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 (Disciplinary Authority) has been merged. 3 10.2 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case." 3. WPS NO.9695/2023 (HEMNIDHI PATEL) - The petitioner, appointed as a Patwari in 1995, was placed under suspension on 11.12.2015, by Respondent No. 4. While suspended, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 11.01.2016, involving a charge-sheet concerning a 'Benami sale purchase' and tribal land' transactions, wherein the petitioner was required to submit a 22 point report. During the enquiry, the petitioner’s repeated requests to provide defence documents were ignored. On 01.04.2017, the Enquiry Officer recorded prosecution witness statements in the absence of the presenting officer. The petitioner has also approached the High Court by filing WPS No.1774/2017 which was disposed of on 17.04.2017 on the ground that since enquiry proceeding is going on and it will open for the petitioner to raise the issue in appeal if eventuality arises. The petitioner further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted in gross violation of natural justice, alleging that his statements were forcefully recorded, necessary defence documents were withheld, and he was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Based on an enquiry report dated 22.04.2017, that found him guilty of the alleged charges, and acting on the specific directions of the office of Collector, Respondent No. 4 issued a final order terminating the petitioner from service 28.07.2017. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s subsequent departmental appeals were consistently dismissed, first by the Collector on 21.12.2020, due to a self-stated lack of jurisdiction because the termination was done on his own prior directions, and later by the Commissioner on 4 15.05.2023, who upheld the order of the disciplinary Authority, Collector. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to challenge the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and his consequential termination and prayed for relief mentioned above. 4. WPS NO.9767/2023 (SUKHAN SAY SIDAR) - The petitioner, appointed as a Patwari on 23.09.1992, served in various circles within District Raigarh before being suspended on 16.12.2015. Following the revocation of his suspension on 06.02.2017, a Departmental Enquiry (DE) was initiated against him on 20.03.2017 based on allegations of involving a charge-sheet concerning a 'Benami sale-purchase' and tribal land' transactions, wherein the petitioner was required to submit 22 point reports. The petitioner also claimed that the enquiry was conducted in gross violation of natural justice, alleging that his statements were forcefully recorded, necessary defence documents were withheld, and he was denied a fair opportunity to cross- examine prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has also approached the High Court by filing WPS No.1787/2017 which was disposed of on 17.04.2017 on the ground that since enquiry proceeding is going on and it will open for the petitioner to raise the issue in appeal if eventuality arises. However, he was terminated from service on 28.07.2017 by respondent no. 4 under explicit directions from respondent no. 3 (Collector) based on enquiry report. According to the petitioner, his subsequent departmental appeals were consistently dismissed, first by the Collector on 21.12.2020, due to a self- stated lack of jurisdiction because the termination was done on his own prior directions, and later by the Commissioner on 15.05.2023, who upheld the order of the disciplinary Authority, Collector. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to challenge the validity of the disciplinary 5 proceedings and his consequential termination and prayed for relief mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of WPS NO. 9695/2023 (Hemnidhi Patel) would submit that the imputation of charges levelled against the petitioner was vague and based on false allegations. No specific misconduct or misbehavior was mentioned against the petitioner in connection with charges pertaining to the alleged 'Benami sale purchase' of tribal persons. As per the charge levelled against the petitioners, they indulged in the illegal sale and purchase of land of Village Kunkuni, but no list of documents was supplied to the petitioners except a copy of the letters and the enquiry report. He further submits that during the cross- examination of the departmental enquiry, no such documents which were allegedly prepared by the petitioner have been exhibited. No opportunity for cross-examination of departmental witnesses had been provided, thus principle of natural justice has not been followed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of WPS NO. 9767/2023 (Sukhan Say Sidar) would submit that in this case, statements of departmental witnesses, who were the chairman/members of the Enquiry Committee, were prepared and submitted before the Enquiry Officer on 01.04.2017. Since necessary documents were not provided to the petitioner, he sought time for the cross-examination of the witnesses. He also submits that though the petitioner was provided an opportunity of cross- examination, but no documents were provided to him enabling him to properly defend himself. He also submits that the statements of departmental witnesses in the form of affidavits were prepared on 27.03.2017, but on the same day, the petitioner filed an application for 6 providing a copy of the documents vide Annexure-P/5, but only some documents were provided to him on 28.03.2017 i.e., after the recording of the chief-examination and cross-examination of the departmental witnesses. 7. Learned counsel in respect of both the petitioners submits that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners before passing the order of major penalty. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced by the respondent/Authorities to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged illegal sale/purchase of tribal land. He further submits that after the submission of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer, the SDO Revenue Lelunga/Kharsia forwarded the same to the Collector, Raigarh, but the Collector suggested the removal of the petitioners. He submits that since the Collector is not the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners, he could not have passed such an order; rather, the SDO (Revenue) Lelunga/Kharsia was the Disciplinary Authority. However, the SDO (Revenue) Lelunga/Kharsia, without application of mind, imposed a major penalty upon the petitioners by the impugned order dated 28.07.2017 on the basis of the order given by the Collector, Raigarh, which is completely illegal and arbitrary. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the petitioners were discharging their duties with honesty and sincerity, but they have been terminated from their service in an arbitrary and illegal manner, and yet they have also not attained the age of superannuation. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgments of Union of India Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma1 - Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another2 and Union of India Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar3. He lastly submits 1(2018) 7 SCC 670 2(2011) 14 SCC 379 3(2009) 12 SCC 78 7 that it is well-settled law that when disciplinary action is taken against an employee, the inquiry must strictly follow official rules and the principles of natural justice, which mean giving the employee a fair and proper hearing, and the charges brought against them must be clear, specific, and detailed, spelling out exactly what they did wrong and when. If the accusations are vague or general, the employee cannot properly defend themselves. Because of this, the entire inquiry cannot stand up in court and would be dismissed. However, no such law has been followed by the Authorities in the present case. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the petitioners may be reinstated in service with back-wages and consequential service benefits. 9. Respondent/State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that the petitioner Hemnidhi Patel had filed document Annexure-P/7 dated 27.03.2017, whereby he has requested for the supply of documents, and documents were supplied to him on the same day, which is also clear from the note-sheets dated 27.03.2017 and 01.04.2017. Further, he himself had endorsed in the margin of the note-sheet that he received the copy of the receipts ' विक्रय नकल' & ' नामांतरण पंजी'; despite that, the petitioner did not cross-examine the departmental witnesses on 01.04.2017. Therefore, the application/prayer by him seeking time to cross-examine witnesses has been rightly rejected and, as such, it cannot be said that a due opportunity of hearing was not provided. 10. Learned State counsel, in respect of petitioner Sukhan Say Sidar, submits that the petitioner himself had cross-examined the departmental witnesses on 27.03.2017. The learned State counsel fairly submits that after the cross- 8 examination of the witnesses, the document was supplied to him on the next date of hearing, i.e., 28.03.2017, which has been endorsed in the application (Annexure-R/2) itself. 11. Learned State counsel submits that in both cases, after a due enquiry conducted by the 6-member team of Revenue/Government officials, it was found that the petitioners indulged in illegal sale/purchase transactions of tribal land with outside people, for which they prepared revenue documents which were found proved in the departmental proceedings. The learned State counsel further submits that the petitioners failed to raise any sound defence in their statements and were unable to counter the charges levelled against them. The petitioners were afforded a full opportunity of hearing and principle of natural justice has been duly followed. Hence, the major penalty of removal was imposed on the petitioners after following due procedure under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1966"). In view of such submissions, he prays to dismiss both the writ petitions. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed with the petition(s) with utmost circumspection. 13. The petitioners' case involves two land record officials i.e. who were appointed as Patwaris. Both the petitioners had long careers serving in District Raigarh before they were terminated on the same day i.e. 28.07.2017 for the same allegations which relates to illegal Benami land sales in Kunkuni village. Before proceed with the matter it would apt to peruse the allegations/charges levelled against the Petitioner - Hemnidhi 9 Patel by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kharsiya and Petitioner- Sukhan Say Sidar by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) Lailunga, which is reproduced as under:- HEMLATA NIDHI PATEL आरोप पत्र श्री हेमविनधि पटेल विनलंवित पटारी ह०नं० 38 तहसील खरसिसया द्वारा पू" पटारी ह०नं 13 में पदस्थापना के समय ग्राम कु नकु नी के आविदासिसयों की भूविमयों के ेनामी क्रय-विक्रय में संलिलप्त रहे । अनुविभागीय अधिकारी (रा.) खरसिसया आरोप विरण पत्र आप पटारी ह०नं० 26 तहसील खरसिसया में पदस्थ रहने के दौरान खरसिसया तहसील आविदासी ब्लाक होने के ाजूद भी ग्राम कु नकु नी के आविदासी कृ षकों की भूविम को कु नकु नी से ाहर रहने ाले अनुसूधि5त जनजाधित के व्यवि7यों को आपके द्वारा विक्री छांट नकल दी जा कर आविदासिसयों की भूविम ेनामी क्रय करने में सहयोग की गई है जो कलेक्टर रायगढ़ के पत्र क्रं . 12231/वित्त-स्था./2015 विदनांक 01.01.2015 के साथ संलग्न जाँ5 प्रधितेदन से प्रमाणिणत है। अनुविभागीय अधिकारी (रा.) खरसिसया **** SUKHAN SAY SIDAR आरोप पत्र श्री सुखनसाय सिसदार पटारी तत्कालीन पटारी तहसील खरसिसया एं त"मान पटारी तहसील लैलूंगा सिजला रायगढ़ ग्राम कु नकु नी तहसील खरसिसया के आविदासिसयों की भूविमयों के ेनामी क्रय-विक्रय मामले में संलिलप्त रहे । अनुविभागीय अधिकारी (रा.) लैलूंगा आरोप विरण पत्र आप तहसील खरसिसया में पटारी के पद पर पदस्थ रहने के दौरान खरसिसया तहसील आविदासी ब्लॉक होने के ाजूद भी ग्राम कु नकु नी तहसील खरसिसया के आविदासिसयों की भूविम कु नकु नी से ाहर रहने ाले अनुसूधि5त जनजाधितयों के व्यवि7यों को आपके द्वारा विक्री छांट नकल दी जाकर आविदासिसयों के भूविम के ेनामी क्रय-विक्रय मामले में संलिलप्त रहे हैं जो कलेक्टर रायगढ़ के पत्र क्रमांक 12231/वित्त-स्था./2015 विदनांक 01.10.2015 के साथ संलग्न जां5 प्रधितेदन विदनांक 04.08.2015 से प्रमाणिणत है । अनुविभागीय अधिकारी (रा.) लैलूंगा 14. The provisions for charge-sheet of imputation has been provided in Rule 14(3) of the Rules 1966 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 10 "Rule 14(3) - Preparation of charge-sheet. (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." 15. Bare perusal of aforesaid charges, statements of imputations reproduced above and perusal of Rule 14(3) would show that only vague allegations were made against the petitioners that they had indulged in alleged illegal Benami sale purchase of land of tribals. The imputations of charge only reveal that they prepare alleged "Bikri Chhant" and provided the same to the persons, but nothing has been mentioned in the charge and the statement of imputation that what is the Khasra number of area of the land, who were the tribal owners and that to whom alleged Bikri Chhant was provided by the petitioners. On such allegations, the disciplinary Authority has called upon the petitioners to submit their defence statement in reply to the charges. This Court fails to appreciate how the petitioners could have submitted their written statement in defence in respect of charges and how a fair enquiry could be held unless they were furnished with the particulars of the alleged land of tribal persons and what document was executed in respect of alleged indulgence of petitioners. In case of Surath Chandra 11 Chakrabarty Vs. Sate of W.B.4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the vague imputation charges observed as under in Para 5:- "5.....The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 16. The aforesaid finding has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another 5 . 17. Needless to say, in the present case, all the departmental witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer were either the Chairman or members of the Enquiry Committee, and the persons who had prepared the enquiry report itself. 18. Further, as per the list of documents provided to the petitioners along with the charge-sheet, the only documents provided were the enquiry report and letter(s) of the Collector. However, no document was found to have been provided to the petitioners which they had allegedly prepared, i.e., "Bikri 4 1970 (3) SCC 548 5(2011) 14 SCC 379 12 Chhant", or any other document prepared by them to show their indulgence in the alleged sale and purchase transaction. 19. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner Hemnidhi Patel filed an application dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure-P/7) to provide documents to him. In this regard, though in the enquiry note-sheet dated 01.04.2017 it has been mentioned that the documents sought by him were not provided to him on 27.03.2017, in the note-sheet dated 27.03.2017 it was endorsed by him with regard to the receipt of copies of the sale deed and 'Namantaran Panji'. However, nothing transpires from the charge and imputation of charge as to what was the petitioner's involvement in respect of the preparation of the alleged sale deed and 'Namantaran Panji'. Furthermore, the alleged sale deed and 'Namantaran Panji' have neither been filed nor proved by any of the departmental witnesses. 20. In the case of Petitioner Sukhan Say Sidar, he had filed an application for providing copies of documents vide Annexure-P/5 (Annexure-R/2) on 27.03.2017, but the endorsement with regard to the receipt of documents made by him in the aforesaid application shows that the documents were provided to him on 28.03.2017, whereas the departmental witnesses were examined on 27.03.2017. Thus, the documents were provided to him after the recording of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the departmental witnesses, which cannot be said to be a fair trial provided to the petitioner. 21. In both the cases, as per the imputations of charge, they provided 'Bikri Chhant' of lands of tribals for illegal sale and purchase transactions to the outside persons of Village Kunkuni, but the 'Bikri Chhant' allegedly prepared by the petitioners has also neither been filed nor proved or exhibited by the 13 departmental witnesses, which is evident from the examination-in-chief of the departmental witnesses. 22. Moreover, in the case of Hemnidhi Patel, the examination of departmental witnesses was recorded on 01.04.2017, but on that date, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure-P/3) for grant of time for cross-examination of the witnesses on the ground that he had filed an application under the RTI Act on 29.03.2017 seeking some documents which had not been received by him; therefore, he sought time to cross-examine the departmental witnesses, but the same was rejected by the Enquiry Officer and subsequently the matter was posted for recording of his statement. 23. Though in the case of Petitioner Sukhan Say Sidar, he was provided an opportunity for cross-examination of the departmental witnesses, as has been observed above, the statements of the departmental witnesses were recorded on 27.03.2017, but despite an application filed by him to provide copies of some documents, he was provided the same on the next date, i.e., 28.03.2017, which is not justifiable. 24. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. S. K. Kapoor 6 the Hon'ble Supreme categorically observed that "it is a settled principle of natural justice that any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same". 25. It is also apt to note here that all the departmental witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer or Enquiry Officer were either the Chairman or members of the Enquiry Committee itself who prepared the enquiry report. 6 (2011) 4 SCC 589 14 Thus, the status of such witnesses remained to be interested witnesses, as they had already submitted a report against the petitioners. 26. The procedure with regard to recording of statement of witnesses is provided in Rule 14(14) and 14(15) of the Rules, 1966 which reads thus:- “Rule 14. (14) – Appearance of prosecution evidence and witnesses. 14. (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. “Rule 14. (15) – Production of additional documents and witnesses. 14.(15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer, to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re- examine any witness and in such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the enquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government servant to produce 15 new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. Note. - New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. 27. After analysis of the structural mandate of Rule 14 of Rules, 1966, it reveals a strict, sequential statutory framework designed to safeguard the principles of natural justice during a departmental inquiry. Once a delinquent employee denies the charges, sub-rule (14) places the absolute burden of proof on the disciplinary authority to produce its oral and documentary evidence first, granting the government servant an explicit right to cross- examine those prosecution witnesses. 28. In the instant case, as has been observed in the preceding paragraphs, neither the alleged documents 'Bikri Chhant' had been provided to the petitioners along with a copy of the charge-sheet, nor had those documents been filed, exhibited, or proved by the Presenting Officer during the course of the enquiry. Even due opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the Petitioner Hemnidhi Patel, whereas the Petitioner Sukhan Say Sidar, though provided an opportunity to examine the departmental witnesses, was provided the documents sought by him to be relied upon in his defence only after the cross-examination of the witnesses. Thus, such lacunae and lapses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, resulting in a major penalty, cannot be appreciated, and it cannot be said that Rules 14(14) and 14(15) of the Rules of 1966 were duly complied with and that the principles of natural justice have been followed by the Enquiry Officer. 16 29. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Union of India Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar 7 , after considering the various judgments observed that enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and held in Para 35 as under:- "35. In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjunctures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct." 30. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan8 observed that even in a domestic enquiry, the charge must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion made herein-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that there are glaring 7(2009) 12 SCC 78 8 (1986) 3 SCC 454 17 deficiencies in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The respondents/Authorities failed to produce, exhibit, and prove any specific revenue documents and land records that were allegedly prepared or manipulated by the petitioners to prove their indulgence in the alleged illegal sale and purchase transactions of lands of tribals. It appears that instead of introducing direct evidence, the Enquiry Officer relied entirely on an enquiry report prepared by a six-member committee. Further, a major penalty has been inflicted upon the petitioners, i.e., terminating them from service, only on account of a direction given by the Collector, Raigarh to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lailunga/Kharsiya, whereas the Collector himself was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioners. The aforesaid fact makes it clear that the major penalty of removal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioners by the disciplinary authority/concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) without application of mind. 32. Hence, the manner in which the enquiry was conducted against the petitioners right from the issuance of the charge-sheet is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, and the enquiry is against the well-established law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, the impugned order of termination is not sustainable and same deserves to be set-aside. 33. As a result, the impugned termination order dated 28.07.2017 against the petitioners passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Sub Divisional Officer (R) Lailunga and Kharsiya, respectively, in both cases are hereby quashed/set- aside. 18 34. Consequently, the Appellate orders dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Collector, Raigarh and subsequent order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, in both the cases respectively, are hereby quashed/set aside. 35. The petitioners are entitled for reinstatement in service. However, they are not entitled for monitory benefit for intervening period i.e. the date of termination and reinstatement, but the said intervening period shall be counted for other benefits i.e. notional promotion, seniority etc. in accordance with applicable rules. Further, in case if any petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation, then consequences shall follow as above, in accordance with applicable rules. 36. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service within a period of 30 days from today. 37. Learned State counsel is directed to inform about this order to the Respondents/Authorities forthwith. 38. The Writ Petitions are allowed the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay