1 / 11 2026:CGHC:17531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3477 of 2025 • Fatte Lal Sahu S/o Shri Tika Ram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Karma Vihar, Moti Nagar, Behind Ram Mandir, Old Dhamtari Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Presently Posted As Assistant Engineer Under The Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director Regional Office- Raipur Division, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Office Of Municipal Corporation Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate with Ms. Pragati Kaushik, Advocate For Respondents- State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate and Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ writs in the nature of mandamus and quashed/ set aside the charge sheet dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P- 1) issued by the State government in the interest of justice. 2 / 11 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ writs in the nature of mandamus and directed to respondent authority to provide all relevant documents to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and just.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an employee of Respondent No. 4 and was posted as Assistant Engineer. While he was posted as Assistant Engineer with Respondent No. 4, he was put under suspension vide order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) levelling certain allegation. Petitioner was served with a charge memo thereafter on 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) by the State Government. Issuance of charge-memo was put to challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the State Government is not the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority and therefore State Government is having no jurisdiction to issue charge-memo and to direct to conduct necessary proceedings. He would further submit that Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”) provides for Appointment and Conditions of Service of Corporation Officers and servants, under sub-section 1 of Section 58 State Government has formulated rules governing the services of the officers/ employees of the Municipal Corporation as Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment Condition of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules 2018 (for short, the Rules of 2018) (for short “Rules of 2018”). Referring to Rule 2(ख) he would submit that in the Rules of 2018 the appointing authority has been specified as Mayor-in- Council or the Commissioner. He would also contend that under Section 60 of the Act of 1956 it specifically provides for Discharge and 3 / 11 Infliction of penalties, and for imposing punishment on the officers and the servants of the Municipal Corporation it is mentioned that no authority subordinate to the authority who makes the appointment. In the case at hand, the Commissioner and the Mayor-in-Council would be the competent authority to impose punishment and therefore the charge-memo ought to have been by the authority who has been mentioned to be an authority to impose penalty. He would also refer sub-section 6 of Section 60 of the Act of 1956 to submit that for inflicting major penalty of reduction in rank, removal from service and dismissal from service, it is mentioned as Mayor-in-Council to impose such penalty with the previous consultation with the State Government/ Divisional Commissioner. In the scheme of provisions of the Act of 1956 and the Rules of 2018, State Government has not been mentioned to be an authority to be appointing authority or disciplinary authority and therefore issuance of charge-memo by Respondent No. 1 is not sustainable. 3. Learned counsel for State vehemently oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner has been appointed by the order of Respondent No. 1 and therefore Respondent No. 1 would be an authority for issuance of charge-memo and to act as a disciplinary authority. Referring to Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, it is submitted that it provides for the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor can issue order of suspension as also the charge-memo and hence there is no 4 / 11 error on the part of Respondent No. 1 in issuing charge-memo to petitioner for initiating departmental enquiry against him for the alleged misconduct. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4-Municipal Corporation would support the submission of learned counsel for the State. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 6. To appreciate the rival submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of the Act of 1956 and rules framed thereunder. Section 58 of the Act of 1956 which is relevant in the facts of the case is extracted below for ready reference. “58. Appointment and conditions of Service of Corporation Officers and servants.- (1) Subject to the rules made by the State Government in respect of the Set-up, Strength, Recruitment, Appointment, Pay-Scales, Allowances and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the Corporation, the corporation shall appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the Corporation: Provided that- (i) the power of appointing any person on a municipal post which carries a maximum scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, by an order in writing specify, shall vest in the Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner; (ii) any appointment made within his power by the Commissioner shall be reported for information to the Mayor-in-Council. (iii) every appointment to be made by the Mayor- in-Council shall be subject to the prior confirmation of the State Government. The 5 / 11 decision of the State Government in this behalf shall be final. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in emergent situations, the Mayor-in- Council may make adhoc appointments for a period not exceeding six months, with prior permission of the State Government. (3) The State Government may depute to any post under the corporation carrying maximum scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, by an order in writing specify such servants of the State Government as it may consider necessary. (4) The terms and conditions of deputation of servants of the State Government, including disciplinary control shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or bye-laws made there under, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6) transfer on deputation (any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation) to any other Municipal Corporation and it shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the Officer or Servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this sub-section. (6) The officer or servant transferred under sub- section (5) shall- (a) have his lien on the post held in the parent Corporation; (b) not be put to disadvantageous position in respect of pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had he continued inn the parent Corporation; (c) be entitled to deputation allowance at such rate as the State Government may by general order specify; and (d) be governed by such other terms and conditions including disciplinary control as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify. Explanation :- for the purpose of sub-section (3) & (4) - i.e. 1. "Town and Country Development Authority" means the Town and Country Development Authority constituted under section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh* Nagar tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 23 of 1973) ; 2. "Government undertaking" means an undertaking wholly are partly owned or control by the State Government.” 6 / 11 7. Section 60 provides for Discharge and Infliction of Penalty. Sub-section 2 of Section 60 provides for penalties to be imposed upon any municipal officer or servant, which is extracted below. “60. Discharge and infliction of penalties.- 1. x x x x x (2) The following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed upon any municipal officer or servant:- (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increment or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iii) reduction to a lower time-scale or to lower stage in a time-scale; (iv) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or by breach of orders; (v) fine to be deducted from salary; (vi) reduction in rank; (vii) removal from the service of the Corporation which ordinarily disqualify from the future employment. (viii) dismissal from the service of the Corporation which ordinarily disqualify from the future employment: Provided that a dismissed municipal officer or servant may be re-employed by the Corporation with the special sanction of the Government. Explanation- The penalty of removal may be inflicted upon a Municipal officer or servant either for misconduct not sufficiently grave to justify dismissal or on account of general unfitness for the duties of his office.” 8. Perusal of aforementioned provisions would show that the appointing authority is Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner but according to the provision of Section 58, the approval is to be granted by the State Government on the proposal forwarded by the Municipal Corporation to give appointment to any officer or the employee. Sub-section 2 of Section 60 provides for penalties to be imposed and sub-section 5 of Section 60 specifies the authority to impose penalties under sub- 7 / 11 section 2 of Section 60. Sub-section 6 of Section 60 further clarifies imposition of major penalties to be only by the Mayor-in-Council with the previous consultation of Divisional Commissioner. 9. Under the scheme of the Act of 1956, the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority has been envisage to be Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner. Rule 2 (ख) of the Rules of 2018 further defines appointing authority. It specifies that according to the proviso under Sub-section 1 of Section 58 of the Act of 1956, the appointing authority means Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner. 10. From the aforementioned provisions available under the Act of 1956 and the Rules of 2018 it is explicitly clear that the State Government has not been mentioned to be appointing authority or a disciplinary authority so as to inflict punishment upon the officer or the employees of the Municipal Corporation. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the State based on the order of suspension of petitioner to have been passed by the State Government is concerned, primarily it is not under challenge in this writ petition and secondly under the Rules of 2018 there is no specific provision for suspension of employee of the Municipal Corporation. Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018 provides for Other Conditions of Service. Sub-rule 1 and sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 are extracted below for ready reference: “15. Other conditions of service.- (1) The Corporation shall be competent to determine the procedure and method under which medical treatment, provident fund and pension may be decided. Other conditions of service, not provided for in these rules, shall be such as are applicable from 8 / 11 time to time to Government employees of equivalent grade. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the following rules, as applicable to Government servants, as amended from time to time, shall also apply to the employees of the Corporation, namely: (a) Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules (Volume One and Two) (b) Chhattisgarh Travel Allowance Rules (c) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (d) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (e) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 12. Under Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority has been envisaged, it is also extracted below for ready reference: “12. Disciplinary authorities. (1)The Government may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 on any Government servant. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 may be imposed on- (a) a member of State Civil Service by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor; (b) a person appointed to a State Civil post by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor, or [xxx] [Omitted by Notification No. 503-CR- 437-I-(iii) 72, dated 25-2-1972.] by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule :- (a) no penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be imposed by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority: [Provided that the High Court shall have the power to impose all the penalties except penalties as 9 / 11 specified in clause (vi) (so far as it relates to reduction in rank i.e., post of service), and clauses (vii) to (ix) of Rule 10.] [Added by Notification No. C-6-3-98-3-I, dated 20th May, 1998.] (b)where a Government servant who is a member of a service, is temporarily appointed to any other service or post, the authority competent to impose on such Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall not impose any such penalties unless it has consulted such authority, not being an authority subordinate to it, as would have been competent under sub-rule (2) to impose on the Government servant any of the said penalties had he not been appointed to such other service or post. Explanation. - Where a Government servant belonging to a service or holding to a service or holding a State civil post of any class, is promoted, whether on probation or temporarily to the service or civil post of the next higher class, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this rule to belong to the service of, or hold the State civil post of such higher class. 13. Under the Act of 1956, Section 420 provides for ‘Power to demand punishment or dismissal’, which is extracted below for ready reference: “420. Power to demand punishment or dismissal.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if in the opinion of the Government any officer or servant of the Corporation is negligent in the discharge of his duties the Corporation shall, on the requirement of the Government, suspend, fine or otherwise punish him and if in the opinion of the Government he is unfit for his employment the Corporation shall dismiss him. 14. The aforementioned provision starts with ‘notwithstanding anything contained in this Act’, therefore it is having the overriding effect on all other provisions of the Act as well as the subordinate legislation including the rules framed under it. Rules of 2018 which is pressed upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is framed in exercise of the power 10 / 11 under Section 433 read with Section 58 of the Act of 1956. Being so, Section 420 is having the overriding effect and the State Government is having the jurisdiction to issue charge memo to the employee of the Municipal Corporation as in the case at hand petitioner being the Assistant Engineer and an employee of the Municipal Corporation. Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1966 also provides that the Government may impose any of the penalty specifying in Rule 10 on any government servant and sub-section 2 of Rule 12 starts with ‘Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 may be imposed. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 talks of ‘no penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be imposed by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority, subject to exception as provided in the proviso’. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2018 also contain non obstante clause and made applicable to CCA Rules, 1966 to the employees of the corporation. 15. Under the Rules of 2018, though the appointing authority has been defined under Rule 2 (ख) to be Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner but the powers vested with the State Government under Section 420 of the Act of 1956 has not been in any manner amended. The State Government is having the authority and jurisdiction under the Act of 1956 as also the Rules of 2018 and therefore the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the State Government is having no jurisdiction and authority under the law to issue charge-memo and initiate departmental enquiry proceedings is misconceived and is not sustainable. 11 / 11 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA