Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Sudin Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 May, 2026
1 / 22
2026:CGHC:23465
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 17.02.2026
Order Delivered on 21.05.2026
Order Uploaded on 21.05.2026
WPS No. 2397 of 2025
Ram Sudin Sahu S/o Late Shri Ganpat Ram Sahu Aged About 57 Years
The Then Revenue Inspector, R/o Village Manipur, Mathpara, Post
Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner/director, Land Records Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan,
First Floor, Block-2, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, Pratappur Road, Village
Sargava, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.05.21
20:13:27
+0530
2 / 22
4 - The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner :Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate along with
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents/State :Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
CAV Order
1. Petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India has questioned the legality and sustainability of
order dated 12th March 2025 whereby appellate authority has
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (delinquent employee)
under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ” Rules of
1966″) affirming the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner
of major penalty of compulsorily retiring the petitioner vide order dated
26.06.2024 passed by Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh,
Raipur.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner while
posted as Revenue Inspector (Land Records) Ambikapur, District-
Sarguja aggrieved with his non-promotion to the post of Assistant
Superintendent (Land Records) wrote letters to Secretary, Revenue
and Disaster Management Department, Govt. Chhattisgarh Raipur on
02.01.2021, 05.04.2021 and 16.07.2021. Respondent No.1, Secretary
Revenue and Disaster Management Department wrote a letter to
Collector, Land Records Branch, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja on
18.08.2021, pleading therein that according to Circulars issued by the
3 / 22
General Administration Department (GAD) dated 06.02.2014 and
29.03.2021 correspondences is to be made by a government servant
through proper channel and not directly and it is further mentioned in
the circular that strict action is to be taken against those government
servants violating the aforementioned circulars. Petitioner has violated
the direction issued by the GAD time to time, which is not proper and
directed to take action against the petitioner for his making
correspondences with higher authorities in violation of Circulars
issued by the State Govt.
3. Collector (Land Records) thereafter had issued charge memo to
petitioner on 29.11.2021 levelling two charges. On the same date i.e.
29.11.2021 appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Enquiry
Officer submitted its report on 09.01.2023 concluding that both the
charges levelled against the petitioner found proved and
recommended for withholding of two early increments with cumulative
effect. Copy of enquiry report is filed as Annexure P-7. Report was
submitted before the Collector, who, upon considering the report
submitted by Enquiry Officer, has issued notice to petitioner on
11.05.2023 along with copy of enquiry report and called for reply.
Petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter Collector Sarguja has
recorded that reply submitted by petitioner is not satisfactory and
recorded that major penalty is to be imposed, but taking note of Rule 9
& 10 of Rules of 1966 that Collector is having jurisdiction to impose
minor penalty, sent the proposal to Commissioner, Sarguja Division
Ambikapur for imposing major penalty under Rule 10 of Rules of 1966
vide its letter dated 24.11.2023. Commissioner, Sarguja Division,
Ambikapur, thereafter, forwarded the said proposal to Commissioner,
4 / 22
Land Records, Chhattisgarh making certain observation therein vide
its letter dated 19.01.2024. Vide order Annexure P-10 dated
26.06.2024, Commissioner Land Records Chhattisgarh Raipur has
imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner.
Order of punishment was put to challenge by the petitioner in an
appeal before respondent No.1 which came to be dismissed vide
order dated 12.03.2025 (Anexure P-1) against which petitioner has
filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:
“(a) To set aside and quash the impugned order
dated 12/03/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by State of
Chhattisgarh, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department.
(b) To set aside and quash the order dated
26/06/2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by Director,
Land Records, Chhattisgarh.
(c) Cost of the present petitioner may also be
awarded.
(d) Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order of
punishment was passed without following due process of law. He
contended that proposal of Presenting Officer was to impose penalty
of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, but,
punishment of compulsory retirement which is major penalty is
inflicted. He contended that there is no allegation against the
petitioner of any financial irregularity or any irregularity committed by
him causing major loss to Department. Allegation against petitioner is
5 / 22
only of making direct correspondences to higher authority that too
raising grievance of his non-promotion. He also contended that order
passed by appellate authority was not a speaking order considering
reply to show cause notice submitted by petitioner. It is his contention
that Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1965”) will not be attracted in the
facts of case. In the letter written by petitioner, there is no mention of
name of any politician and it is not written under letter head of
‘Union’. He also contended that there is no material available in entire
enquiry report so as to made the petitioner liable for major penalty of
compulsory retirement.
5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that order of punishment
issued against the petitioner is after following due process of law. In
the departmental enquiry proceeding, petitioner was served with
charge sheet to which he replied, participated in the departmental
enquiry, statement has been recorded and thereby given proper
opportunity to petitioner to defend himself. Disciplinary Authority and
Appellate Authority have acted strictly in accordance with law,
sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner but he
failed to make out any case in his favour. She contended that
impugned order of punishment and appellate order is just and
proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. In support of her
contention, she places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India
reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749.
6 / 22
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply to argument of
State counsel has submitted that imposition of penalty of compulsory
retirement is in violation of Article 311 of Constitution of India, as
Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report has proposed imposition of
penalty of withholding of increments. Disciplinary Authority if came to
conclusion that penalty proposed by the Enquiry Officer is not
acceptable and petitioner is liable for major penalty then the
Disciplinary Authority ought to have issued show cause notice as to
why major penalty should not be imposed and therefore imposition of
penalty of compulsory retirement is in violation of provision under
Article 311 of Constitution of India.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
records of writ petition.
8. Annexure P-3 is letter written by respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary
State Govt. Revenue and Disaster Management Department
directing the Collector to take action against petitioner for violating
the circulars issued by the State Govt. dated 06.02.2014 and
29.03.2021 which prescribes for correspondences to be made by the
Govt. servant to higher authority, through proper channel. Based on
letter, Collector issued charge memo to petitioner vide Annexure P-5
dated 29.11.2021 levelling two charges, that, petitioner wrote letters
to higher officials on 02.01.2021, 05.04.2021 and 16.07.2021 directly
without prior permission of the competent authority on many times,
due to which it caused hindrance in working. Aforesaid act of
petitioner is misconduct under Rule 3 Read with Rule 21 of the Rules
of 1965. Second charge levelled against the petitioner is of similar
7 / 22
allegations and mentioning that writing letters dated 02.01.2021,
05.04.2021 and 16.07.2021 is in violation of Rule 21 of the Rules of
1965. On the same date, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were
appointed. Along with charge memo, only three letters written by
petitioner which are forming part of charge No.1 and letter written by
Secretary to take action have been enclosed.
9. Enquiry Report is forming part of Annexure P-6 along with covering
letter dated 09.01.2023. In the Enquiry Report, Enquiry Officer
extracted both the charges levelled against petitioner, extracted reply
submitted by petitioner to charge memo, extracted summary
submitted by Presenting Officer and thereafter in conclusion after
taking note of summary submitted by Presenting Officer, reply to
summary submitted by petitioner and contents of letter as also
statement of the petitioner (delinquent employee) concluded that the
petitioner could not able to prove that allegation levelled against him
to be false. In the conclusion he also recommended for imposing of
punishment of withholding of two yearly increments with cumulative
effect and further recorded that he is in agreement with the summary
submitted by Presenting Officer. Forwarded the enquiry report for
further action.
10. Enquiry Officer himself has not submitted its report with independent
application of mind, but have mentioned that he is in agreement with
summary/report of Presenting Officer . Said proceeding of Enquiry
Officer is contrary to law.
11. Based on the enquiry report, Collector has issued notice along with
copy of enquiry report to petitioner vide Annexure P-7 dated
8 / 22
11.05.2023. Petitioner submitted reply to notice. However, Collector
vide letter dated 24.11.2023 (Annexure P-8) had forwarded entire
proceedings to Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur
observing that reply submitted by delinquent employee is not
satisfactory, against him both the charges have been found proved
and major penalty is to be imposed. Under Rule 9 &10 of Rules of
1966, Collector is empowered to impose minor penalty and proposed
for major penalty under Rule 10 of Rules of 1966. Commissioner
Sarguja Division Ambikapur by its letter dated 19.01.2024 Annexure
P-9 written to Commissioner Land Records Chhattisgarh, has
considered the other material also which was not forming part of
charge memo, enquiry report or letter of Collector and further added
that apart from finding proved of two charges and also considering
old record of petitioner, major penalty/primary penalty is proposed.
Based on recommendation made by Collector as also by
Commissioner of Division, Commissioner Land Records has passed
order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement.
12. In the facts of case and submission of learned counsel for petitioner
that procedure prescribed under Rule 1966 is followed or not is a
consideration of the Court. Charge memo placed on record as Ex.P-5
would show that there is violation of Rule 3 read with Rule 21 of the
Rules of 1965.
13. Rule 3 and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965 are extracted below for
ready reference:
9 / 22
” 3. General. (1)Every Government servant shall at all
times :-
(i)maintain absolute integrity;
(ii)maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii)do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government
servant.
(2)(i)Every Government servant holding a supervisory
post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity
and devotion to duty of all Government servants for
the time being under his control and authority.
(ii)No Government servant shall, in the performance
of his official duties or in the exercise of the powers
conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best
judgement except that when he is acting under the
direction of his official superior and shall, where he is
acting under such direction, obtain the direction in
writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not
practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall
obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon
thereafter as possible.
Explanation. – Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2)
shall be construed as empowering the Government
servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking
instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or
authority when such instructions, are not necessary
under the scheme of distribution of powers and
responsibilities.
x x x
x x x
x x x
21. Canvassing of non-official or other influence.-
No Government servant shall bring or attempt to
bring any political or other influence to bear upon
any superior authority to further his interests in
respect of matters pertaining to his service under
the Government.”
10 / 22
14. Rule 21 of the Rules of 1965 extracted above clearly mentions that a
Govt. servant will not bring or attempt to bring any political or other
influence to bear upon any superior authority . In the case at hand,
there is no such allegation against the petitioner but for that he wrote
letters directly to higher authority and subject matter of letter is only of
grievance of petitioner of his non-promotion. Along with charge
memo, petitioner was served with document mentioning therein
which is the letter of respondent No.1 dated 18.08.2021 and three
letters written by petitioner. No document is placed in record like
circular issued by the State Govt. which is relied upon by the
department in coming to conclusion that charges levelled against
petitioner has been proved.
15. Main charge levelled against the petitioner is that act of writing letters
by petitioner is in violation of Circulars issued by the State Govt.
Circulars considered by Enquiry Officer are dated 6 th February 2014
and 29th March 2021. Both the circulars of State Govt. have not been
enclosed along with other documents as mentioned in list of
documents as part of charge memo. In the facts of case where
charges levelled against petitioner is of his act to be in contravention
of Circular issued by State Govt., said material /document is also to
be handed over to petitioner, to prove that conduct of petitioner, in
writing letters to higher officials is in contravention of circulars.
16. It is not the case that copy of Circulars issued by State Govt. were
made available at any point of time to the petitioner who was holding
Class-III post.
11 / 22
17. In the proceeding of departmental enquiry, requirement under law is,
to provide proper opportunity to delinquent employee to defend
against the charges levelled against him and in absence of providing
all material sought to be proved against him, in the opinion of this
Court in the eqnuiry proceedings, petitioner has not been given fair
opportunity to defend.
18. Rule 14 of Rules of 1966 provides for procedure for imposing
penalties. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 talks of preparation of charge
sheet, which is relevant in the facts of case are extracted below for
ready reference:
“14. Procedure for imposing penalties.
(1) x x x
(2) x x x
(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against
a Government servant under this rule and Rule 15,
the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to
be drawn up-
-(i)the substance of the imputation of misconduct
or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of
charge;
(ii)a statement of the imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour in support of each article of
charge, which shall contain :-
(a)a statement of all relevant facts including
any admission or confession made by the
Government servant;
(b)a list of documents by which, and a list of
witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are
proposed to be sustained.”
12 / 22
19. Sub-rule (3) (ii) clearly provides for statement of imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour and sub-rule (3) (ii) (b) provides for list of
documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of
charge are proposed to be substantiate.
20. In case at hand, charge levelled against the petitioner is that
petitioner wrote letters to the superior authority in contravention of
circulars issued by the State Govt. Both the circulars have not been
made part of list of documents. When the charge levelled against
petitioner is based on two documents which are not forming part of
enquiry then it can only be said that procedure provided under Rule
14 of the Rules 1966 is not complied with. Rule 14 (14) provides for
production of prosecution evidence and witnesses by which the
articles of charge are proposed to be proved. In case at hand
prosecution has not examined any witness but for submitting
summary by Presenting Officer as is forming part of enquiry report.
Rule 14 (15) provides for production of additional document and
witnesses by the Presenting Officer on behalf of Disciplinary Authority
which was not included in list given to Govt. servant and thereafter it
comes for production of defence evidence and witnesses and Rule
14 (18) provides for examination of delinquent employee.
21. In the aforementioned facts of case, more particularly in not enclosing
the documents forming basis of departmental enquiry along with list
of documents forming part of charge sheet, which is stated to have
been contravened by the petitioner employee and not examining any
witness by the department in facts of case, in opinion of this
Court, enquiry is in contravention of due procedure as
13 / 22
prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966.
22. Providing reasonable and fair opportunity to delinquent employee is
one of the important facet in the departmental enquiry to be
conducted under the Rules of 1966. Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of 1966
envisages that where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a
government servant under this Rule and Rule 15, the Disciplinary
Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct
articles of charge, a statement of imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall
consist:- a- a statement of all relevant facts including any admission
or confession made by the government servant; b- a list of
documents by which and list of witnesses by whom, articles of charge
are proposed to be sustained.
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of
India & Ors. reported in (1986) 3 SCC 229 while considering
challenge to the order of dismissal of an employee observed thus:
“10. …..The extracts quoted hereinabove leave no
room for doubt that the disciplinary authority refused
to furnish to the appellant copies of documents and
copies of statements. When a Government servant is
facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be
afforded a reasonable opportunity-to meet the
charges against him in an effective manner. And no
one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively
meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant
statements and documents to be used against him
are made available to him. In the absence of such
copies, how can the concerned employee prepare
14 / 22his defence, cross examine the witness, and point
out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the
allegations are incredible ?”………..
24. In case of Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India (through General
Manager, Eastern Railways) reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 518,
Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :
“4…..Article 311 of the Constitution requires that
reasonable opportunity of defence must be afforded
to a government servant before he is awarded major
punishmust of dimissal. It further contemplates that
disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with
the rules in a just and fair manner. The procedure at
the enquiry must be consistent with the principles of
natural justice. Principles of natural justice require
that the copy of the document if any relied upon
against the party charged should be given to him and
he should be afforded opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in
his defence. If findings are recorded against the
government servant placing reliance on a document
which may not have been disclosed to him or the
copy whereof may not have been supplied to him
during the enquiry when demanded, that would
contravene principles of natural justice rendering the
enquiry, and the consequential order of punishment
illegal and void.”……
25. In the case at hand, it is not the case that the documents mentioned
in imputation of the articles of charge, nor referred to nor relied upon,
but the basis of imposing punishment is on the allegation that
petitioner has contravened the circulars as mentioned therein and
therefore those documents were important and necessary to be
15 / 22
supplied to the petitioner (delinquent employee) to meet out the
charged levelled against him.
26. Though Rule 14 does not specify mentioning of penalty which can be
imposed if charge is found proved, but when it is specifically
mentioned in imputation of charge that petitioner made liable himself
for punishment under Rule 10 (iv) of Rules of 1966, it is to be
presumed that delinquent employee participated in the enquiry
proceedings with that mind set. If major penalty is to be inflicted
instead of minor penalty as mentioned in charge memo, it definitely
had caused prejudice to the petitioner, because he was not afforded
opportunity to defend himself against charge attracting major penalty.
27. Any Govt. servant when issued charge memo to face departmental
enquiry, he/she should be given proper and fair opportunity to defend.
28. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak
Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 has observed as under:
“20. A reading of the enquiry report also shows that the
respondent herein was not furnished with the required
documents. The Department’s witnesses were not
examined in his presence. Though the respondent who
was the writ petitioner specifically stated so in the
affidavit before the High Court in the writ proceedings,
those averments were specifically controverted in the
reply-affidavit filed by the Department. Mere denial for
the sake of denial is not an answer to the specific
allegations made in the affidavit. Likewise, there is no
evidence to show that after submission of the report by
the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority, the
respondent herein was furnished with the copy of the
said report along with all the relied upon documents.
16 / 22
When all these infirmities were specifically pleaded and
brought to the notice of the appellate authority (i.e.
Forest Conservator), he rejected the same but has not
pointed out the relevant materials from the records of
the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority to support
his decision. Hence, the appellate authority has also
committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the
respondent.”
29. Next question which is germane to facts of case is that in the articles
of charges forming part of charge memo there is mention that the
petitioner has made himself liable for punishment under Rule 10 (iv)
of the Rules of 1966.
30. Rule 10 of Rules 1966 is under Part -V of the Rules of 1966 which
deals with “penalty and disciplinary authorities”. Rule 10 mentions
that following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as
hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Govt. servant. Under minor
penalties, following is provided :
” (i) Censure;
(ii) withholding of his promotion;
(iii) Recovery from his pay of whole or part of any pecuniary loss
caused by him to Govt. by negligence or breach of order;
(iv) withholding of increments or stagnation allowance.”
31. In the article of charge, charge levelled against petitioner stating that
petitioner made himself liable under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1966
would show that charges have been levelled for imposing minor
penalty. Petitioner has been imposed penalty of compulsory
retirement which is under major penalty, which starts from Rule 10
17 / 22
(v). From bare perusal of charge memo charge leveled against the
petitioner was for minor penalty only. One of ground raised by
learned counsel for petitioner is that charges have been leveled
holding the petitioner liable for minor penalty than imposition of major
penalty without giving any notice in this regard is in violation of
provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
32. Perusal of enquiry report submitted by Enquiry Officer, which is
annexed as Annexure P-6, would show that Department has not
examined any witness to prove any document but the Presenting
Officer has submitted summary only with recommendation to propose
penalty of withholding two annual increments. Circulars issued by
State Govt. which are basis to make liable the petitioner to face
enquiry were not part of the charge memo. The Circulars as
mentioned above i.e. circulars dated 6th February 2014 and 29th
March 2021 were not enclosed along with charge memo, along with
list of documents forming part of charge memo along with nor the
Presenting Officer has placed it before the Enquiry Officer. In
absence of said document available before the Enquiry Officer, the
Enquiry Officer could not have concluded that the charges levelled
against petitioner has been proved. From enquiry report it appears
that Enquiry Officer has relied upon summary submitted by
Presenting Officer without there being any documentary proof of
contents of said Circular issued by State Govt. and examination of
any witness in this regard.
33. Enquiry Officer has only recorded that in the above he is in
agreement with report of Presenting Officer and submitted its report.
18 / 22
34. Conclusion recorded by Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report would
show that it mentions that Presenting Officer has made proposal for
withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and from perusal
of last two lines of report it appears that there is no independent
application of mind of Enquiry Officer to come to conclusion that
charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved.
35. Collector came to conclusion that major penalty is to be imposed,
shows that as he was in disagreement with report so far as it relates
to proposal of punishment and the proposed penalty for which charge
memo was issued, then minimum requirement under law is of giving
show cause notice to delinquent employee mentioning as to why
major penalty should not be imposed upon him. From letter written by
Collector dated 24.11.2023 Annexure P-8 it is not appearing that
Collector issued such notice to petitioner/delinquent employee.
Commissioner Sarguja Division Ambikapur has also not issued such
letter and therefore imposition of major penalty against the petitioner
is bad in law. Even in order Annexure P-10 issued by respondent
No.2 it is only mentioned that letter dated 09.04.2024 was sent to
petitioner along with enquiry report and sought reply from
petitioner/delinquent employee on enquiry report to which he
submitted reply, but there is no mention of issuance of show cause
notice as to why major penalty should not be imposed instead of
minor penalty for which charge memo was issued.
36. From aforementioned facts of case it is apparent that proper
procedure as provided under Rule 14 of Rules of 1966 has not been
followed which vitiates the enquiry conducted against petitioner.
19 / 22
37. Now I will consider whether the punishment imposed upon petitioner
of compulsory retirement is proper or disproportionate in the facts of
case and nature of charge levelled against him.
38. This Court is aware with regard to scope of interference with the
punishment imposed upon delinquent employee by the department to
be very limited. Only in exceptional circumstances where the
punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee on charges
levelled against him, shocks conscience of Court, then only the Court
can interfere with the punishment. Allegation against the petitioner is
that petitioner wrote three letters to respondent No.1 i.e. Senior
Officer in department raising his grievance of his non-promotion to
the post of Assistant Superintendent (Land Records) from the post of
Revenue Inspector. Admittedly, petitioner is Class -III employee and
what is reflecting from contents of letters forming part of records is
that he was aggrieved with his non-promotion. It is not the allegation
against the petitioner in the charge memo that petitioner has written
anything out of the context of subject of his non-promotion or written
anything which is unbecoming of Govt. servant. However, even
though when the charge memo issued to petitioner is for imposition of
minor penalty under Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules 1966, respondent
authorities have imposed upon him major penalty of compulsory
retirement.
39. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Om Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union
Of India reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386, has held as under :
“28. By “proportionality”, we mean the question
20 / 22whether, while regulating exercise of fundamental
rights, the appropriate or least-restrictive choice of
measures has been made by the legislature or the
administrator so as to achieve the object of the
legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as
the case may be. Under the principle, the court will see
that the legislature and the administrative authority
“maintain a proper balance between the adverse
effects which the legislation or the administrative order
may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons
keeping in mind the purpose which they were intended
to serve”. The legislature and the administrative
authority are, however, given an area of discretion or a
range of choices but as to whether the choice made
infringes the rights excessively or not is for the court.
That is what is meant by proportionality.”
40. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India
reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 while considering the case of appellant
therein against the punishment of compulsory retirement observed
thus:
“34. The proved charges remained only Charges 4 and
6 and in both the cases the misconduct seems to be of
an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a
serious nature. It was not the case of the Department
that the appellant had taken the escort vehicle with him.
There was only one vehicle which was an official vehicle
for his use and Charge 6 stood partly proved. In view
thereof, the punishment of compulsory retirement shocks
the conscience of the Court and by no stretch of
imagination can it be held to be proportionate or
commensurate to the delinquency committed by and
proved against the appellant. The only punishment which
could be held to be commensurate to the delinquency
21 / 22was as proposed by the Government of India to withhold
two increments for one year without cumulative effect. It
would have been appropriate to remand the case to the
disciplinary authority to impose the appropriate
punishment. However, considering the chequered history
of the case and in view of the fact that the appellant had
remained under suspension for 11 months, suffered the
order of dismissal for 19 months and would retire after
reaching the age of superannuation in December 2013,
the facts of the case warrant that this Court should
substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement to
the punishment proposed by the Union of India i.e.
withholding of two increments for one year without
having cumulative effect.”
41. In the case at hand also, allegation levelled against the petitioner is of
misconduct of administrative nature that he wrote letters directly to
higher officials, and not through proper channel (through Head of
Office). The letter, written is only of raising grievance against his non-
promotion and there is no other allegation levelled against him in the
charge memo. Imposition of punishment is only on the basis of
allegation in the charge memo, documents which is said to be
contravened i.e. circular dated 06.02.2014 and 29.03.2021, and
report submitted by Presenting Officer. No witness was examined to
prove charge. Petitioner was not supplied the copy of documents
which formed basis to initiate departmental enquiry i.e. the two
circulars. Charge memo issued with imputation mentioning that
petitioner made himself liable for punishment under Rule 10 (iv) of
the Rules of 1966. However, major penalty is imposed under Rule 10
(vii) without issuing show cause notice.
22 / 22
42. In view of the above, punishment imposed by respondent No.2 vide
letter dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-10) and affirmed by appellate
authority in its order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) is not
sustainable.
43. In the aforementioned facts of case where charge memo is issued
mentioning that petitioner made himself liable for punishment under
Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules of 1966 only, but major penalty under Rule
10 (vii) is inflicted, and nature of misconduct alleged, documents
forming basis to invite enquiry is not forming part of charge memo,
witnesses not examined by department and other discussions as
made above, in the opinion of this Court, the punishment imposed
upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement is not sustainable.
Accordingly, the order of punishment and the order of appellate
authority are set aside/quashed . The petitioner will be entitled for all
consequential benefits including continuity of service. Respondent
authority shall take decision on back-wages to be paid to petitioner
after giving opportunity of hearing. Respondents will be at liberty to
initiate enquiry from the stage it got vitiated, if they so desire.
44. Writ petition is allowed in above terms.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
