1 / 6 CGHC010232902024 2026:CGHC:42197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3880 of 2024 Set Ram Chouhan S/o Shri Indrajeet Chouhan Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Sub Registrar Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.), R/o Village Kewatpali, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commercial Tax (Registration) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Inspector General Of Registration And Superintendent Of Stamps 2nd Floor, North Block, Sector-19, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Registrar Registration And Stamp, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Departmental Enquiry Officer O/o District Registrar (Registration And Stamps) Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the orders dated 12.06.2024 and 30.11.2022, filed as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Annexure P-2 dated 30.11.2022, submits that the Inspector General of JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.29 17:13:33 +0530 2 / 6 Registration has directed fresh enquiry into the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner pursuant to the communication dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure P-11) issued by the Enquiry Officer to the office of the Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps, Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Annexure P-8, submits that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 11.02.2020 (Annexure P-3). The Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry and submitted the enquiry report dated 12.08.2021 before the Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that the said enquiry report was forwarded by the Enquiry Officer to the Inspector General of Registration vide communication dated 29.10.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from a perusal of Annexures P-8 and P-9, it is evident that the departmental enquiry had already been concluded and the enquiry report had been submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Referring to Annexure P-10, it is submitted that thereafter the Inspector General of Registration directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct fresh enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 11.02.2020. 5. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer, in response to the aforesaid direction, informed the Inspector General of Registration that the enquiry had already been conducted in accordance with law and the enquiry report had been prepared on the basis of the 3 / 6 material and evidence available on record. Learned counsel submits that if the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that any further enquiry was required, the same could have been directed only in accordance with Rule 15 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the CCA Rules'), by recording reasons for such further enquiry. However, a fresh enquiry into the same charges could not have been directed in the manner done in the present case. He further places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447, and submits that where there is some defect in the enquiry already conducted, the Enquiry Officer may be directed to conduct further enquiry in respect of the charges, but the earlier enquiry cannot be completely set aside and a fresh enquiry directed merely because the report is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order directing fresh enquiry is contrary to Rule 15 of the CCA Rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 has been passed pursuant to the communication dated 04.02.2022. He submits that the Inspector General of Registration had directed a fresh enquiry into the charges and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 4 / 6 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether, after conclusion of the departmental enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority could have directed a fresh enquiry into the same charges without recording reasons as contemplated under Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. 9. For ready reference Rule 15 of the CCA rules is quoted below:- “15. Action on the inquiry report.--(1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in 2[x x x] Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servants, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty [but in doing so it shall record reasons in writing]: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the 5 / 6 Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant.” 10.Thus, the power available under Rule 15 of the CCA Rules is to remit the matter for further enquiry, and such power is required to be exercised by recording reasons in writing. The said provision does not contemplate that, after completion of the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority can, without assigning any reason or pointing out any defect in the enquiry already conducted, simply direct a fresh enquiry into the same charges. 11.In the present case, the material available on record demonstrates that the petitioner was proceeded against pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 11.02.2020 and that the departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 12.08.2021 before the competent authority. Thus, the departmental enquiry pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet had already been concluded. 12. However, thereafter, the Inspector General of Registration, vide the impugned order, directed fresh enquiry into the very same charges. From a perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that no specific reason has been recorded as to why the enquiry already conducted was found to be defective or why further enquiry was considered necessary. There is also nothing in the impugned order to indicate any disagreement with a particular finding of the Enquiry Officer or any particular evidence which was required to be further examined. 6 / 6 13.In the facts of the present case, the impugned order directing fresh enquiry does not disclose any reason as to the defect in the earlier enquiry or the necessity for conducting fresh enquiry. The earlier enquiry having already been concluded and the enquiry report having been submitted, the direction for fresh into the same charges, without compliance with the requirement of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules, cannot be sustained. 14.Consequently, the impugned orders dated 12.06.2024 and 30.11.2022, filed as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside. 15.However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and the provisions of the CCA Rules, if so permissible. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. 16.With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti