1 CGHC010248682020 2026:CGHC:37766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4709 of 2020 1 - M.R. Kunjam S/o Late Shri Samaru Ram Kunjm Aged About 64 Years Retired Block Education Officer, R/o Village Gotatola, Post Charbhantha (Ku.) District Raj- nandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Officer Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Dis- trict Raipur, Chhatisgarh Pin 492002, 2 - The Under Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Officer Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhatisgarh Pin 492002, 3 - The Director Publec Instruction Department Indrawati Bhawan, Post Officer Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhatis- garh Pin 492002, 4 - The District Education Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, 5 - The District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 18.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 5, as well as the orders dated 07.05.2019 and 07.02.2020 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby re- spondent No. 2 has directed recovery of an amount of Rs.1,23,499/- and deduction of 10% of the petitioner’s pension for a period of one year on the allegation that the petitioner was involved in embezzlement of approximately Rs.1 crore. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.08.25 11:45:46 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was only in respect of Rs.18,37,420/-, whereas the im- pugned order dated 07.05.2019 imposed penalty on the allegation of embezzlement of approximately Rs.1 crore, for which no charge-sheet or enquiry was ever conducted. It is further submitted that the peti- tioner's appeal was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2020 without con- sidering the aforesaid specific objection. Hence, the impugned orders dated 07.05.2019 and 07.02.2020, along with the consequential order dated 18.09.2020, are liable to be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that the same have been passed in accordance with law after considering the material available on record. It is, therefore, submitted that no inter- ference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 reads as under: “27. Consideration of appeal.—(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appel- late authority shall consider— (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been com- plied with and, if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is ex- cessive, or adequate, or inadequate and should pass orders— (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty, with such directions as it may deem appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 07.02.2020 has been passed without proper consideration of the petitioner's specific grounds of appeal and is not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966. 3 7. Since the order dated 07.02.2020 is a non-speaking order and appears to have been passed in a stereotyped manner without dealing with the specific contentions raised by the petitioner, the same is hereby set aside. The appellate authority is directed to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti