1 CGHC010271832023 2026:CGHC:40631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5926 of 2023 Dr. Mrityunjay Saraf S/o Shri Jai Kumar Saraf Aged About 37 Years R/o Lodhipara, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.), Posted At - Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Danikundi, Block Marwahi, Gaourella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawai Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Gourella Pendra Marwahi, Gourella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 4 - Collector, Gourella Pendra Marwahi District - Gourella Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 5 - The Appellate Authority (Under Cca Rules 1966), Through Its Secretary Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vartika Shrivastava, PL RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.18 17:05:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17.09.2026 1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition for the following reliefs:- “I That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05/04/22 passed by Respondent No.1. II. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay the remaining salary of the suspension period of the petitioner and also direct to pay the amount of Earned Leave period. III That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to grant promotion to the petitioner to the next promotional post which is of Pathology Specialist and also grant senior grade pay scale to the petitioner. IV Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and V. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 31.07.23 (Annexure P/24) passed by the Appellate Authority.” 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Medical Officer, was posted at CHC Marwahi and was discharging his duties. It is submitted that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government had issued guidelines with respect to home isolation of Covid-19 patients. The petitioner himself tested positive for Covid-19 infection on 16.04.2021 and, in accordance with the Government guidelines, remained in home isolation. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also informed his senior authorities about his medical condition. 3 (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner being under home isolation, he was directed to report for duty at Dongariga Covid Care Centre on 26.04.2021. Since the petitioner was already in home isolation on account of Covid-19 infection and his health condition had deteriorated, he could not join his duties at the said Covid Care Centre. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to him and the petitioner submitted his reply explaining the entire facts and circumstances, including his Covid-19 infection and medical condition. (c) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was subsequently subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the allegation that he had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 04.02.2022, specifically explaining the circumstances in which he could not report for duty. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner having requested for a personal hearing, no such opportunity was afforded to him and the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty of withholding of three increments vide order dated 05.04.2022. (d) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent appellate authority, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 05.04.2022 and 31.07.2023. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was duly served with the charge-sheet and was afforded reasonable 4 opportunity to submit his reply. It is submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and thereafter the order of punishment was passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. The question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the penalty of withholding of increments upon the petitioner without holding an enquiry, despite the petitioner having disputed the allegations levelled against him and having specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing? 6. Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, “the Rules of 1966”), lays down the procedure to be followed before imposition of a minor penalty. The relevant provision reads as under:- “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; 5 (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; … (e) consulting the commission where such consulation is necessary. (1-a) xxx xxX XXX (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the commission, if any; (vi) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, and (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor." 7. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that before imposing a minor penalty, the Government servant is required to be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which such action is proposed, and is required to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of making his representation. 8. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ku. Shailja R. Jeswani Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2000(3) MPHT 85 (NOC), has held that notice cannot be construed as a proposal to take action against the petitioner with regard to imputation of misconduct and quashed the order imposing minor penalty. 6 9. In the case of Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1967 MPLJ 528), a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clearly held that merely giving a notice to the Government servant saying that he is guilty of certain lapse or misconduct and asking him to show cause against the punishment of withholding of increments is not sufficient. It was observed in para 5 as under: - "5. The petitioner's grievance that he was not given an effective opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment of withholding of his increments is also substantial. Under rule 55-A of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which were in force before 13th August 1965, such a punishment could be imposed on any Government servant only after giving him an adequate opportunity of making a representation that he desired to make and after taking into consideration such representation, if made. So also, under rule 13(1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the punishment of withholding of increment can be imposed only after the Government servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take this action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make and after taking into consideration such representation, if made. No doubt, it is not necessary to hold a departmental enquiry for imposing on a Government servant the punishment of withholding an increment. But he is clearly entitled to an effective opportunity of meeting the allegations on which it is proposed to withhold his increment. Merely giving a notice to the Government servant saying that he is guilty of certain lapse or misconduct and asking him to show cause against the punishment of withholding of increments is not sufficient. The Government servant must be informed of the allegations against him and the material on which 7 they are based. In the present case, the second notice, which was issued to the applicant on 15th April 1963, was, as stated in the return itself, on the basis of report of enquiry which was held in July 1954. A copy of that report should have been supplied to the petitioner for enabling him to meet the charge of negligence levelled against him and to show that he did not deserve any punishment." 10. Further the Supreme Court in case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 180 has observed thus: "3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with." 11. This Court, in WPS No.5370 of 2025, decided on 16.02.2026, while considering the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966, has also held that where the prescribed procedure under Rule 16(1)(a) and Rule 16(1)(b) has not been followed, the order imposing minor penalty cannot be sustained. In the said case, the order imposing penalty of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect was accordingly quashed. 12. In the case at hand, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in respect of the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty at 8 Dongariga Covid Care Centre. The petitioner, in his reply, explained that he himself had tested positive for Covid-19 on 16.04.2021 and was required to remain in home isolation in accordance with the Government guidelines. He had also informed his superior authorities about his medical condition. The petitioner specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing. 13. Since the allegations were factual in nature and had specifically been disputed by the petitioner, an enquiry was required in terms of Rule 16(1)(b) of the Rules of 1966, and in such circumstances, the petitioner was required to be afforded an effective opportunity to meet the allegations and defend himself. The material facts relied upon by the petitioner in his defence, therefore, required proper consideration in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966. 14. In the facts of the present case, therefore, mere issuance of the charge- sheet and consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner cannot, by itself, be held to constitute compliance with the principles of natural justice. Once the petitioner had disputed the factual allegations and had specifically sought personal hearing, the disciplinary authority was required to ensure an effective opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations against him in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh (supra), O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) and the decision of this Court in WPS No.5370 of 2025, the impugned order of punishment dated 05.04.2022 cannot be sustained. 9 16. For the foregoing discussions and the decisions referred to above, this writ petition is allowed. 17. The impugned order of punishment dated 05.04.2022 and the appellate order dated 31.07.2023 are hereby quashed. As this Court has allowed the writ petition on the ground of non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, if so advised, following due process of law. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul