Chattisgarh High Court
Har Prasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2026
1
NIRMALA
RAO
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
217-02-2022 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
4and 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