1 CGHC010176732022 2026:CGHC:38223 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4388 of 2022 Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Gaind La Aged About 36 Years R/o Flat No. 247 , Jmig Block 12, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Health Services , 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Health Services , 3rd Floor , Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Directorate , Health Services, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kuleshwar Prasad Dhankar O.A. Grade Iii C/o Joint Director, Directorate, Health Services , 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kamal Kant Soni O.A. Grade Iii C/o Joint Director, Directorate, Health Services , 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P. L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1- That the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner as well as other respondents. 2- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction /directions and to command the respondents by writ of mandamus and to quash the impugned orders Annexure P-1 to P-3. 3- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion from the date of his juniors and further direct to the respondents to maintained the seniority as per the past seniority list and also direct the respondents to pay all wages and consequential benefits of the promotion post. 4. That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any writ/ order or direction as deem fit in the circumstances of the case and may be kind enough to pass any appropriate order in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III under respondent No. 4, was inflicted with the penalty of censure under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (for short, CCA Rules, 1966). He would further submit that the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 30.01.2020, which was duly replied to on 07.02.2020. He would further submit that, without holding any inquiry in accordance with Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966, the order of censure dated 09.07.2020 passed by the Joint Director, Directorate , Health Services, is bad in law. He brings to the notice of the Court that, as per the Service Rules, the disciplinary authority is the Director, Health Services, whereas the penalty has been 3 inflicted by the Joint Director. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the matter of Mansingh Bhardwaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in Writ Appeal No. 531 of 2025, dated 28.07.2025. He would, therefore, pray to allow the petition. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner and, thereafter, a decision was taken by the Joint Director, Directorate Health Services, Raipur. He would contend that since penalty of “censure” alone was inflicted, there was no need to conduct a departmental inquiry. He would also submit that the Director, Joint Director and Deputy Director are included as Directors, therefore, the order impugned is valid and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. According to the Service Rules, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is the Director, Directorate Health Services, whereas the penalty was inflicted by the Joint Director, Directorate Health Services on 09.07.2020, whereby the penalty of censure was imposed. No inquiry was conducted against the petitioner as per Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966. Though a show-cause notice was issued and the same was replied to by the petitioner. Though authority inflicted penalty of Censure, h was under an obligation to conduct an inquiry in accordance with rules. 6. In the matter of Mansingh Bhardwaj (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench held that only the authority expressly empowered under the statute is competent to exercise disciplinary powers. Any order passed by an unauthorized authority is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Further, where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or the impugned action is without jurisdiction, the existence of 4 an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Having considered the law laid down in the matter of Mansingh Bhardwaj (supra), and the facts of the present case, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim