1 CGHC010148102025 2026:CGHC:42326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2692 of 2025 Ram Bahadur Rai S/o Late Kedarnath Rai Aged About 60 Years R/o North Ring Road, Near Mission Chowk, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Public Instructions Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-3, First Floor Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Public Instructions, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Respondents (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Apurva Nigam, PL RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.10.01 10:33:28 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, whereby departmental enquiry has been proposed to be initiated against the petitioner in relation to his absence from duty for the period from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006. 2. (a) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Teacher and was posted at the concerned Government school. He remained absent from duty from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006. The petitioner claims that during the said period he was suffering from serious illness and was undergoing treatment at a Government Hospital. Upon recovery, he submitted the relevant medical documents and sought permission to resume his duties. (b) The District Education Officer, Ambikapur, vide order dated 30.05.2006, treated the aforesaid period of absence as dies-non. Subsequently, in connection with the same period of absence, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 22.02.2023, the Joint Director, Education Division, Surguja, imposed upon him the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. (c) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.5762/2023. The said petition was disposed of on 22.08.2023 3 with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority. (d) The appellate authority, vide order dated 20.06.2024, considered the matter and set aside the order dated 22.02.2023. The appellate authority found that the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 had not been followed before imposition of the minor penalty and that the petitioner had not been afforded the requisite opportunity. It also categorically recorded a finding that the order dated 30.5.2006 by which declaring the leave period of the petitioner as dies non by the District Education Officer is not tenable because the said authority is not competent to declare the leave period as dies non. According to the appellate authority, the competent authority in respect of such matters is the Divisional Joint Director, Education Division, Surguja. The appellate authority accordingly set aside the penalty order and directed the Divisional Joint Director, Education Division, Surguja, to ensure that the period of absence of the petitioner from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006 is dealt with afresh and expeditiously in accordance with the applicable rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of absence of the petitioner from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006 had already been the subject matter of proceedings before the departmental authorities and was initially treated as Dies-non vide order dated 30.05.2006. The said order was subsequently set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.06.2024 on the ground that the authority which had passed the order was not competent 4 to treat the period as Dies-non. The appellate authority also set aside the penalty order dated 22.02.2023 on account of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and directed the respondents to deal with the aforesaid period of absence afresh in accordance with the applicable rules. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, instead of undertaking the exercise directed by the appellate authority for dealing with the aforesaid period of absence in accordance with the applicable rules, the respondents have proceeded to institute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the very same period of absence. It is submitted that the alleged absence relates to the period from 2004 to 2006 and was within the knowledge of the department since 2006. Therefore, initiation of departmental proceedings after such a long lapse of time, particularly when the matter had earlier been the subject matter of departmental proceedings and the appellate authority had issued a specific direction for its expeditious resolution in accordance with the rules, causes serious prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel supports the impugned action and submits that, since the earlier penalty order dated 22.02.2023 had been set aside on account of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, the competent authority was entitled to proceed afresh in accordance with law and to conduct an enquiry for determining the manner in which the period of absence was required to be dealt with under the applicable rules. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the document available on record. 5 7. The question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts of the present case, the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 by treating the direction contained in the appellate order dated 20.06.2024 as warranting institution of a fresh departmental enquiry in respect of the petitioner's absence from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006. 8. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereunder:- “ लोक शिक्षण सं चालोनालोय छत्तीसंगढ़ इन्द्रावती भवना, खण्ड-३, प्रथम तीलो, अटलो नागर, रयपु$र फोना नाम्बर-07712331385, Email Id-cg.dpi.dir@gmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- क्रमांक / सतक त/जी /सरगु जी/10/2024/535 नवा रयपु र, दिनक 20-06-2024 //आदे*// 1/ श्री रमांबहादुर रय उच्च वागु शिक्षक सकय पुवा मांध्यमिमांक ला मां#द्राकला विवाकसखण्ड अम्बि+बकपु र ( वातमांन मां# प्रधान पुठक पुवा मांध्यमिमांक ला ख/रवार अम्बि+बकपु र) दिनक 02.11.2004 स0 29.05.2006 तक ( क ला 574 दिवास) विबन पुवा सचन क0 कतव्य स0 अन पुस्थि34त रहा0। कयलाय जिजीला शिक्ष अमिधाकर7 अम्बि+बकपु र (सरगु जी) क0 आ0 क्रमांक 3159/2006, दिनक 30.05.2006 द्वार श्री रय क0 उक्त अनमिधाक; त अन पुस्थि34मित अवामिधा क< अकय दिवास (Dies-non) 3वा क; त विकयगुय। जिजीला क<षालाय न0 सक्षमां अमिधाकर7 द्वार अकय दिवास 3वा क; त नहा> विकय0 जीन0 क0 करण आपुशि@ क गुई, फला3वारूपु प्रकरण सन क< प्र0विषात विकय गुय, ला0विकन सन न0 स+बमिधात क0 अनमिधाक; त अन पुस्थि34मित अवामिधा क< अकय दिवास (Dies-non) 3वा क; त नहा> कर श्री रय क0 विवारूद्ध लाघु स्थि3त अमिधार<विपुत करन0 हा0त विनFशित विकय । 2/ चविक जिजीला शिक्ष अमिधाकर7 विकस भी सकय स0वाक क0 अन पुस्थि34मित अवामिधा क< अकय दिवास (Dies-non) 3वा क; त करन0 हा0त सक्षमां प्रमिधाकर7 नहा> हा/, इसशिलाएजिजीला शिक्ष अमिधाकर7 अम्बि+बकपु र (सरगु जी) क0 आ0 दिनक 30.05.2006 द्वार श्री रमांबहादुर रय, उच्च वागु शिक्षक क0 अनमिधाक; त अन पुस्थि34मित क< अकय दिवास (Dies-non) 3वा क; त 6 करन0 क0 आ0 क< विनर3त विकय जीत हा/। 2/ सन न0 श्री रमांबहादुर रय, उच्च वागु शिक्षक क0 अनमिधाक; त अन पुस्थि34मित क0 स+बधा मां# श्री रय क0 विवारुद्ध लाघु स्थि3त अमिधार<विपुत करन0 हा0त विनFशित विकय हा/। सन विनF क0 पुलान मां# कयलाय सभीगु य सय क्त सचलाक, शिक्ष सभीगु सरगु जी न0 आ0 कमांक 3756, दिनक 22.02.2023 द्वार श्री रय क0 एक वा0तन वा;दिद्वा असचय प्रभीवा स0 र<कन0 क स्थि3त अमिधार<विपुत विकय। श्री रय न0 उक्त आ0 क< च नKत 0त0 हुए मांन. छ.गु. उच्च न्ययलाय मां# यमिचक कमांक WPS5762/2023 यर विकय, जिजीसमां# दिनक 22.08.2023 क< आ0 पुरिरत हुआ। न्ययलाय न आ0 क0 अन क्रमां मां# श्री रय न0 उच्च कयलाय (सचलानलाय) मां# अपु ला प्र3त त विकय। श्री रय सचलानलाय मां# स नवाई दिनक 29.04. 2024 क< उपुस्थि34त हुए। अशिभीला0ख# क0 अन सर सभीगु य सय क्त सचलाक, शिक्ष सभीगु सरगु जी क0 द्वार श्री रय क< करण बतओ सचन पुत्र जीर7 विकय गुय त4 प्रमितवा सत<षाप्र नहा> हा<न0 क0 करण आ0 दिनक 22.02.2023 द्वार स+बमिधात क एक वा0तन वा;शिद्ध असचय प्रभीवा स0 र<कन0 क स्थि3त अमिधार<विपुत विकय । सभीगु य सय क्त सचलाक, शिक्ष सभीगु सरगु जी क0 द्वार छ@ सगुढ़ शिसविवाला स0वा (वागुSकरण, विनयत्रण त4 अपु ला) विनयमां, 1966 क0 विनयमां 16 अन्तगुत लाघु स्थि3त अमिधार<विपुत विकय0 जीन0 हा0त विनधारिरत प्रविकय क0 अन सर लाघु स्थि3त अमिधार<विपुत करन0 क0 पुवा स+बमिधात क< समां मिचत स नवाई क अवासर दिय जीन चविहाए य उनक0 विवारूद्ध विवाभीगु य जीTच करन चविहाए 4। इस प्रकर छ@ सगुढ़ शिसविवाला स0वा (आचरण) विनयमां, 1965 क0 विनयमां 7 क0 अन्तगुत अनमिधाक; त रूपु स0 अन पुस्थि34त कमांचर7 क0 विवारूद्ध य4 समांय तत्पुरत स0 अन सनत्मांक कयवाहा स विनश्चिWत विकय जीन चविहाए 4। ला0विकन उक्त प्रविकयआ# क पुलान नहा> विकय0 जीन0 क0 करण एवा न्ययलाय न विनणय क0 पुरिरपुलान मां# सभीगु य सय क्त सचलाक, शिक्ष सभीगु सरगु जी क0 आ0 दिनक 22.02.2023 द्वार श्री रमांबहादुर रय, उच्च वागु शिक्षक क0 एक वा0तन वा;शिद्ध असचय प्रभीवा स0 र<कन0 क0 आ0 क< विनर3त विकय जीत हा/। 3/ सभीगु य सय क्त सचलाक , शिक्ष सभीगु सरगु जी क< विनFशित विकय जीत हा/ विक श्री रमांबहादुर रय , उच्च श्री0ण शिक्षक क0 दिनक 02.11.2004 स0 29.05.2006 तक क0 अन पुस्थि34मित अवामिधा क पु नX विनयमांन सर त्वारिरत विनरकरण करन स विनश्चिWत कर# , तविक न्ययलाय अवामांनन क स्थि34मित विनर्मिमांZत न हा< । (Emphasis added) 9. A perusal of the order dated 20.06.2024 makes it clear that the earlier order dated 30.05.2006 passed by the District Education Officer, Ambikapur, whereby the period of absence of the petitioner from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006 7 was treated as Dies-non, was set aside on the ground that the said authority was not competent to treat the period of absence as Dies-non. The appellate authority also set aside the order dated 22.02.2023 imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, having found that the procedure prescribed under the applicable rules had not been followed. 10. Having set aside the aforesaid orders, the appellate authority specifically directed the Divisional Joint Director, Education Division, Surguja, to ensure that the period of absence of the petitioner from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006 is dealt with afresh, expeditiously and in accordance with the applicable rules. The relevant direction contained in the appellate order reads as under: “ सभीगु य सय क्त सचलाक, शिक्ष सभीगु सरगु जी क< विनFशित विकय जीत हा/ विक श्री रमांबहादुर रय, उच्च श्री0ण शिक्षक क0 दिनक 02.11.2004 स0 29.05.2006 तक क0 अन पुस्थि34मित अवामिधा क पु नX विनयमांन सर त्वारिरत विनरकरण करन स विनश्चिWत कर#, तविक न्ययलाय ” अवामांनन क स्थि34मित विनर्मिमांZत न हा<। 11. Thus, the appellate authority did not itself determine the manner in which the aforesaid period of absence was to be treated. Rather, after setting aside the earlier orders, it directed the competent authority to undertake the exercise afresh and to deal with the said period of leave in accordance with the applicable rules. 12. The question, therefore, is whether the aforesaid direction contained in the order dated 20.06.2024 could be construed as a direction or authority to mechanically institute a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the direction contained in the appellate order was required to be understood in its proper perspective. The 8 earlier order treating the period as Dies-non had been set aside on the ground of want of competence, while the subsequent penalty order dated 22.02.2023 had also been set aside on account of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the position which obtained prior to the aforesaid orders was required to be reconsidered by the competent authority, to the extent of leave period from 2.11.2024 to 29.5.2006, in accordance with the applicable service rules. 14. The expression “ पु नX विनयमांन सर त्वारिरत विनरकरण” occurring in the appellate order required the competent authority to undertake the exercise in accordance with the governing rules. The said direction cannot, in the absence of any further consideration, be treated as an automatic mandate for institution of a fresh departmental enquiry. The course to be adopted by the competent authority, including whether any departmental proceeding is permissible or necessary, has to be determined strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In the present case, however, the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 proceeds on the basis that the aforesaid direction necessarily requires institution of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the period from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006. The impugned order, therefore, proceeds upon an interpretation of the appellate order which does not appear to be warranted from the terms of the said order itself. 16. It is also relevant that the period in question relates to the years 2004– 2006 and the absence of the petitioner was admittedly within the knowledge of the department since that period. The earlier order treating the period as Dies- 9 non was passed as far back as on 30.05.2006. Thereafter, the matter travelled through the departmental and appellate proceedings and the penalty order dated 22.02.2023 was ultimately set aside by the appellate authority on 20.06.2024. In these circumstances, the competent authority, while undertaking the exercise directed by the appellate authority, is required to act strictly within the framework of the applicable rules and in accordance with the tenor of the appellate order. 17. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, insofar as it proceeds by treating the appellate order dated 20.06.2024 as authorising or requiring institution of a fresh departmental enquiry in the manner stated therein, cannot be sustained in its present form. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, is hereby set aside. 19. However, setting aside of the impugned order shall not preclude the respondents from undertaking the exercise directed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.06.2024. The competent authority shall be at liberty to deal with the period of absence of the petitioner from 02.11.2004 to 29.05.2006 afresh, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and in the light of the directions contained in the appellate order dated 20.06.2024. 20. Needless to observe, if the applicable rules require any further proceeding to be undertaken for determination of the manner in which the aforesaid period of absence is to be dealt with, the competent authority shall be at liberty to take such action in accordance with law. However, such exercise 10 shall not proceed merely on the basis of the interpretation placed upon the appellate order in the impugned order dated 10.01.2025. 21. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul