1 CGHC010365942026 2026:CGHC:40957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6856 of 2026 Smt. Durgavati Kunjam (Usare) W/o Shri Ashok Usare, Aged About 50 Years R/o Block -1 Type F -4, Civil Line Church Road, Near Chaupati, District Durg C. G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Public Health Family Welfare, And Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Police Station Rakhi Raipur, District Raipur C. G. 2 - The Under Secretary Department Of Public Health, Family Welfare, And Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Police Station Rakhi, Raipur, District Raipur C. G. 3 - The Chairman, Nursing Council / Director Of Health Services, Swasthya, Bhawan, Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C. G. 4 - The Joint Director Of Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C. G. 5 - The Deputy Director Of Health Services, Swasthya, Bhawan Sector - 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C. G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.22 17:44:23 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned orders dated 16.02.2026 and 11.03.2026 (Annexures P/1 & P/2), whereby respondent No.4 constituted the Preliminary Enquiry Committee, and further seeks quashment of the charge- sheet dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P/5), along with all consequential departmental disciplinary proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent No.4 constituted a three-member Preliminary Enquiry Committee, including himself as its Chairman, is wholly without jurisdiction, as respondent Nos.4 and 5 were neither the appointing nor the disciplinary authorities of the petitioner. It is submitted that although the Committee was constituted for limited verification of registration-related records, it travelled beyond its terms of reference and submitted its report dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P/2), recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, without affording her any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent suspension and departmental proceedings, including issuance of the charge- sheet dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P/5), are founded upon the said preliminary enquiry report and recommendations. Since the 3 petitioner and the concerned Joint Director were appointed by the State Government, the State Government alone was competent to initiate or order such preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. By placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha & Another v. Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye & Others, (2021) 17 SCC 90, he would contend that an authority can exercise only such powers as are conferred upon it by law and cannot assume jurisdiction by implication. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the constitution of the Preliminary Enquiry Committee, the report and recommendations submitted pursuant thereto, and all consequential actions, including the suspension and departmental disciplinary proceedings, are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 3. (a) Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner that the Preliminary Enquiry Committee was constituted specifically against her is misconceived. It is submitted that the enquiry in question was a general internal enquiry undertaken with regard to the registration- related records and was not directed against any particular employee. During the course of such general enquiry, certain irregularities were noticed and the name of the petitioner surfaced in the records, indicating prima facie irregularities and alleged mala fide acts attributable to her. Consequently, on the basis of the material noticed during the general enquiry, further enquiry 4 and appropriate departmental action against the petitioner were contemplated in accordance with the applicable service rules. (b) Learned State counsel further submits that the preliminary enquiry was only a fact-finding exercise and did not itself result in any final determination of guilt against the petitioner. The subsequent departmental proceedings are independent in nature, wherein the petitioner would have full opportunity to defend herself and the allegations would be examined in accordance with law. It is, therefore, submitted that the constitution of the Committee, its report and the consequential departmental proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction merely because the petitioner’s name came to be noticed during the course of the general enquiry. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the documents available on record. 5. The principal challenge of the petitioner is to the constitution of the alleged Preliminary Enquiry Committee on the ground that respondent No.4 had no jurisdiction to constitute the same and that the Committee, having been constituted without jurisdiction, could not have recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. However, from the material available on record, it appears that the enquiry conducted by the Committee was a general internal enquiry relating to the registration-related records and was not directed against the petitioner individually. It was during the course of such general enquiry that certain irregularities were noticed and the name of the petitioner came to 5 be reflected in the records, on the basis of which further enquiry and departmental action against her were contemplated on the basis of the report submitted by the internal enquiry committee. Therefore, merely because the petitioner’s name came to be mentioned in the report, it cannot be said that the Committee was constituted specifically against her or with a predetermined object to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 6. It is further evident that the enquiry conducted pursuant to order dated 16.2.2026 (Annexure-P/1) was only a fact-finding exercise and did not result in any final determination of guilt against the petitioner. The subsequent departmental proceedings are required to be conducted independently in accordance with the applicable service rules, wherein the petitioner would have full opportunity to defend herself. At this stage, the correctness of the allegations or the material collected during the preliminary enquiry cannot be examined as if the same constitutes a final finding of misconduct. 7. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye (supra), is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts, as in the present case the Committee was constituted for a general enquiry and not specifically against the petitioner. As such the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 16.02.2026 and 11.03.2026 (Annexures P/1 & P/2) or the consequential departmental proceedings, including the charge-sheet dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P/5). 6 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar