1 2026:CGHC:14534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5 of 2021 1 - Indul Ram Dehari S/o Late Manrakhan Lal Dehari Aged About 61 Years R/o Sr. Mig- 70, Sector 3, D. D. Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throug Appellate Authority, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate holding the brief of Shri Nitikesh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27 .03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet dated 06 June 1997 issued by the Respondent Authorities. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quah the the Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 22.08.1997 issued by the Respondent Authorities. 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.12.2003 by which the Respondent Authority have stopped one increment from cumulative effect. 10.4) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 15.09.2020 by which the Respondent Authority have rejected the Appeal Preferred by the Petitioner. 10.5) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the Respondent Authorities to grant the entire service benefits to the Petitioner and also kindly be directed to the respondents authorities to return all the entire money which was forfeited from the Petitioner. 10.6) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Dantewada and an article of charge was issued with the allegation that he granted permission to cut trees contrary to Rules. A departmental enquiry was initiated and the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. He would contend that an appeal was preferred and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.9.2020 affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority at the same time observed that the period of suspension shall be considered for pension purposes only. He would contend that no Article of Charge was issued with regard to consider 3 the suspension period for pension purposes and no documents were provided in this regard. He would contend that the observation made by the Appellate Authority is illegal, arbitrary and the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction while passing such an order. He would submit that the order (Annexure-P/10) dated 15.9.2020 may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner granted permission to fell down trees contrary to the provisions of law, therefore, a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted and penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was rightly imposed. He would submit that as the issue with regard to period of suspension was not considered and decided by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the Appellate Authority made observation on the said issue. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The observation made by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 15.9.2020 with regard to period of suspension would certainly affect the civil rights of the petitioner and therefore, the Appellate Authority should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid limited fact, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 15.9.2020 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal 4 preferred by the petitioner afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi