1 2026:CGHC:17028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 346 of 2026 1. Smt. Priyanka Chelak W/o Lileshwar Chelak Aged About 40 Years Rural Health Organizer, Aayushman Aarogya Mandir- Kochwahi, Block- Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Health Services, Indirawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director Directorate Health Services, Indirawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chief Health And Medical Officer District- Balod (C.G.) 5. Block Health And Medical Officer Guru, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer 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:- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.04.22 12:07:59 +0530 2 “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased call records of this matter for the pertaining of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is posted as a Rural Health Organizer (Female) in Aayushman Aarogya Mandir Kochwahi. Vide order dated 9.5.2024 one Jyoti Naag was temporarily posted in Aayushman Aarogya Mandir Kochwahi. Respondent No.6 issued notice dated 20.11.2025 to said Jyoti Naag alleging lapses committed by her in discharge of duties. However, surprisingly, vide impugned order the petitioner has been saddled with the punishment of stoppage of two annual increment with non- cumulative effect until further orders i.e. minor penalty. He submits that the order of punishment of withholding of two increments is a minor punishment under Rule 10 (i) (iv) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1966), but the order of punishment has been passed without following the procedure of imposition of minor punishment 3 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 and as such, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that achievements of petitioner against the targets of all national programs under the development block was nil, therefore, petitioner was directed to improve her performance within three weeks and increase achievements in accordance with set targets for all national programs, which she failed to improve within specified time. Since aforesaid conduct of petitioner was a ‘misconduct under the Rules of 1965, therefore, a minor penalty was imposed on him. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 5. Rule 10(i) to (iv) of the Rules of 1966 provides for minor penalties which states as under:- “10. Penalties.—The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:— Minor penalties :— (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order; (iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;” 4 6. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 provides procedure for imposing minor penalties which states as under: - “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;...” 7. A bare reading of the above quoted Rules, it is clear that the punishment of withholding of annual increment can be imposed on any Government servant only after informing him in writing of the proposal to take this action against him and of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior on which it is proposed to be taken and after giving him an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make and after taking into consideration such representation, if made. Thus, for imposing minor punishment under Rules 1966, the authority has to follow the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules 1966. 8. In the case of Audhraj Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1967 MPLJ 528, it has been held that the 5 punishment of withholding of annual increment can be imposed on any Government servant only after informing him in writing of the proposal to take this action against him and of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior on which it is proposed to be taken and after giving him an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make and after taking into consideration such representation, if made. It was observed in para 5 as under:- “5. The petitioner's grievance that he was not given an effective opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment of withholding of his increments is also substantial. Under rule 55-A of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which were in force before 13th August 1965, such a punishment could be imposed on any Government servant only after giving him an adequate opportunity of making a representation that he desired to make and after taking into consideration such representation, if made. So also, under rule 13(1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the punishment of withholding of increment can be imposed only after the Government servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take this action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make and after taking into consideration such representation, if made. No doubt, it is not necessary to hold a departmental enquiry for imposing on a Government servant the punishment of withholding an increment. But he is clearly entitled to an effective opportunity of meeting the allegations on which it is proposed to withhold his increment. Merely giving a notice.” 9. In case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, the High Court has recorded its opinion 6 that in case of minor penalties, it is not necessary to give opportunity to the employee to give explanation and it is also not necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty. In such a situation, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : "3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with." 10. In the case of Ajay Kumar Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2008(2) MPLJ 541, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, has observed that the Rules of Natural Justice, cannot be bypassed even while imposing minor penalty on the petitioners. A fresh opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners before inflicting minor penalty in the nature of censure. 11. In WPS No.4980/2009, parties being Ajeet Singh Jat vs State of CG and others, decided on 01.07.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with question as to whether minor penalty can be imposed upon an employee without 7 complying the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966, has observed thus: “18. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid proposition, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the petitioner has been served only with show-cause notice dated 22-5-2008 filed in W.P. (S)No.4980/2009, but thereafter, nothing has been done and straightway, order dated 6-12-2008 has been passed holding him guilty of misconduct imposing minor penalty of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect which is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the M.P. High Court in Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh (supra) and C.P. Singh’s case (supra), as show cause notice would not amount to proposal to take action against the delinquent and it would also not amount to serving of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966 and there is complete non-compliance of Rule 16(1)(b) of the said Rules as no opinion has been recorded by the disciplinary authority that as to why inquiry is not necessary; taking the representation submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration. No enquiry was held and nothing further was done and straightway the order has been passed. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order imposing punishment passed on 6-12-2008 is in teeth of the provisions contained in Rule 16(1) of the Rules of 1966 holds 8 water and accordingly, order dated 6-12-2008 deserves to be set aside.” 12. From perusal of order impugned, Annexure P-1, it is clear that no written proposal of misconduct or misbehavior has been issued to petitioner and straightaway the order of penalty has been passed. Thus, the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 has not been followed while imposing minor penalty upon the petitioner. In the reply filed by the respondent-State, there is nothing to indicate that prior to issuance of the impugned order of penalty, any show-cause notice etc. was served upon the petitioner. 13. In view of the above facts and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited case, the impugned order of punishment and stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect until further order cannot be sustained, Accordingly, impugned order dated 8.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. However it would be open for the respondents to take action against the petitioner following the procedure laid down under the Rules of 1966. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-