1 2026:CGHC:19590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5169 of 2022 1 - Har Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 55 Years Patwari, Patwri Cercle No. 12, Village Karanja, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur P.S. Rakhi (C.G.) 2 - Collector Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed punishment of withholding of two annual increments of petitioner without cumulative effect and quashed order dated NIRMALA RAO 2 17-02-2022 of Commissioner Durg Division Durg maintaining order dated 26-04-2021 of Collector Durg and order dated 05-02-2021 of Sub Divisional Officer Durg (C.G.). 10.3 That cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner, who was posted as Patwari, Halka No.12, Tehsil and District Durg was served with a show-cause notice dated 17.12.2020 wherein, it was alleged that he failed to complete revenue entries in computer. The petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice on 19.12.2020 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 5.2.2021, inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments with noncumulative effect. He would submit that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2021 and thereafter, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Durg, vide order dated 17.2.2022. He would submit that the disciplinary authority failed to comply with the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 to inflict minor penalty and therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent orders are bad in law. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner, in his reply to show- 3 cause notice, admitted that there was a mistake on his part and therefore, there was no need to conduct an enquiry. It is also contended that as a minor penalty was inflicted, therefore, there was no requirement to conduct a full-fledged enquiry. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) A plain reading of the reply of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has given explanation in relation to the charges alleged against him. The petitioner also denied the allegations and requested to drop the enquiry. This is trite that the admission of charge must be unconditional, unqualified and unequivocal. In the matter of Ghanshyam v. State of M.P. 2013(1) MPWN 18=2013 (1) MPLJ 144, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held, in paragraphs 8 & 9, as under: "8. This is settled in law that unless the admission of guilt/charges is specific, unconditional, unqualified and unequivocal, enquiry cannot be dispensed with. In the present case, the petitioner has put forth his defence and made an effort to show that he is not responsible for the charges and the payment was made on the basis of attendance certified by subordinate employee. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner has admitted the charges in totality and without any explanation. In (1998)1 SCC 756, General Court-Martial v. Co. Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal, it is held that an admission can be explained by the makers thereof. An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matter stated therein 4 and it is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend upon the circumstances under which it is made. In 1961 JLJ 414-AIR 1961 SC 1070, Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held as under: "Held that, as the statements made by the appellant did not amount to a clear or unambiguous admission of his guilt, failure to hold a formal enquiry constituted a serious infirmity in the order of dismissal passed against him, as the appellant had no opportunity at all of showing cause against the charge framed against him. Even if the appellant had made some statements which amounted to admission, it was open to doubt whether he could be removed from service on the strength of the said alleged admissions without holding a formal enquiry as required by the Rules." 9. On the basis of aforesaid test laid down by the Supreme Court, if Annexure P-7 is tested it will show that petitioner has given explanation against show cause notice and there is no unequivocal, unconditional, unqualified and specific admission of guilt by the petitioner. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents have erred in treating Annexure P-7 as admission of guilt. Consequently, the respondents have committed an error in not conducting the enquiry. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, Annexures P-1 and P-2 are liable to be set aside and 1 do so. Accordingly, Annexures P-1 and P- 2 are set aside.” 5 6) The reply, by no stretch of imagination, amounts to admission of charges and, therefore, I am unable to hold that no inquiry was required. 7) The Apex Court in the matter of (O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180) opined that where allegations are factual in nature and the delinquent employee has denied the same while filing reply, no punishment should be imposed without holding an inquiry. A careful reading of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 also shows that the Disciplinary Authority is required to conduct an inquiry in such matters where allegations are factual and delinquent employee has not admitted the same. The punishment order shows that reply of the petitioner has not been considered at all. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 further mandates that the Disciplinary Authority is bound to assign reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him. For these cumulative reasons, in my opinion, the decision making process adopted by the department is erroneous and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966. 8) Resultantly, the punishment order dated 5.2.2021 (Annexure- P/3), the Appellate Order dated 26.4.2021 (Annexure P-2) and the second Appellate Order dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure-P/1) are hereby set aside. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the respondents would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with law, if so advised. 6 9) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi