1 CGHC010322112026 2026:CGHC:38563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6326 of 2026 Manoj Khare S/o Shambhu Prasad Khare Aged About 47 Years Posted As Lab Attedant, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary Department Of Tourism Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 2. Under Secretary Department Of Tourism Mahanadi, Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar District Raipur C. G. 3. Institute Of Hotel Management, Catering Technology And Applied Nutrition, Through Its, Principal, Uparwara, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S.S. Badgaiya, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Attendant on temporary basis on 12.09.2011 and his services were subsequently confirmed with effect from 31.10.2013. After rendering more than 14 years of service, the petitioner has once again been subjected to a JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.02 10:52:21 +0530 2 departmental enquiry on the allegation relating to the experience certificate submitted at the time of his appointment. It is submitted that earlier proceedings on the same foundational allegations had already been initiated, pursuant to which an enquiry report dated 09.12.2024 was submitted and the petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 15.05.2025. The said termination order was subsequently set aside by this Court in WPS No. 6213/2025, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, pursuant to the subsequent show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply, but instead of considering the same objectively, the respondents have again initiated a fresh departmental enquiry vide impugned order dated 16.07.2026. 2. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Rules 14 and 15 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short Rules of 1966), as the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have been appointed simultaneously with issuance of the charge-sheet, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence. The repeated initiation of enquiry substantially on the same allegations, despite the earlier enquiry proceedings and the orders passed by this Court, is arbitrary, reflects non-application of mind and amounts to abuse of the disciplinary process. 3. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 has been passed in 3 accordance with law and the respondents are well within their jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the experience certificate furnished by him at the time of his appointment. It is submitted that the earlier order of termination was set aside by this Court with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh, and therefore, initiation of the present enquiry cannot be termed as a repeated or impermissible enquiry. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding the experience certificate is a serious matter touching upon the petitioner's eligibility for appointment and requires proper adjudication in a regular departmental enquiry. Learned State counsel further submits that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer along with issuance of the charge- sheet does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner can raise all his objections and submit his defence before the Enquiry Officer. It is therefore submitted that the departmental enquiry is at its initial stage and the petitioner has an efficacious opportunity to participate in the proceedings and establish his case. Hence, no interference with the impugned order is warranted at this stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the submissions, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner regarding the manner in which the 4 impugned departmental enquiry has been initiated deserves consideration. 6. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. In particular, under Rule 14(4), on receipt of the articles of charge, the Government servant is required to be afforded an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence within the specified time. Thereafter, under Rule 14(5), upon consideration of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may inquire into the charges itself or, if it considers necessary, appoint an Inquiring Authority for the purpose. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 has been issued along with the charge-sheet and the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer have been appointed simultaneously, without first affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence and without consideration of the same by the Disciplinary Authority as has been provided under the Rules, 1966. Further, the petitioner has already faced earlier proceedings in respect of the same foundational allegations, pursuant to which an enquiry report dated 09.12.2024 was submitted and the consequential order of termination dated 15.05.2025 was set aside by this Court in WPS No. 6213/2025, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents ought to have first followed the statutory 5 procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 before proceeding further with the departmental enquiry. The appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer simultaneously with issuance of the charge-sheet, without consideration of the petitioner's defence, is therefore premature. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 is set aside to the extent it proceeds with the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer at this stage. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence to the articles of charge within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reply, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the same objectively and thereafter take an appropriate decision in terms of Rule 14(5) of the Rules of 1966 and proceed further strictly in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti