Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Lal Lahri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2026
1/9
2026:CGHC:8348
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5370 of 2025
1 - Mohan Lal Lahri S/o. Ramphal Lahri Aged About 57 Years Occupation -
Assistant Teacher (Lb) At Government Primary School, Dhamni, Block -
Pathariya, R/o. Sargaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Sargaon, District -
Mungeli (C.G.) Mo. No. 9977229914.
2 - Raju Ram Nishad S/o. Shri Lalaram Nishad Aged About 38 Years
Occupation - Head Master At Government Primary School, Talapara, Block -
Pathariya, R/o. Sargaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Sargaon, District -
Mungeli (C.G.)
3 - Devkumar Pradhan S/o. Shri Santan Das Pradhan Aged About 35 Years
Occupation - Teacher (Lb) At Government Primary School, Kanharkapa,
Block - Pathariya, R/o. Sargaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Sargaon, District -
Mungeli (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Police Station -
Rakhi, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director Public Instruction, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Managing Director State Project Officer, 2nd Floor, Cgbse Building,
Pension Bada, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.02.19
15:16:21
+0530
2/9
4 - Collector Cum Ex-Officio District Mission Director Samagra Siksha, District
- Mungeli (C.G.)
5 - District Education Officer Pathariya, District - Mungeli (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 16/02/2026
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this case is heard finally.
2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the respondent no. (Annexure-P/1) is in the interest of justice.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to remove the recommendation made by the enquiry team in the respect of the petitioners in the enquiry report, is in the interest of justice.
10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given."3/9
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1 to 3 while holding post of Assistant Teacher (LB), Headmaster and Teacher (LB) respectively were issued show cause notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. Petitioners submitted reply to show cause notice and thereafter respondent authorities without framing any charge and following due process of law of conducting departmental enquiry against petitioners have passed the order of punishment of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect. Order passed by respondent authority is without following due procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the MP/CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1966 (for short "Rules of 1966") . He contended that order of punishment is passed without following principles of natural justice and therefore it is bad in law. Effect of penalty is for indefinite period, it is having long-lasting effect till the petitioners retire from service and therefore before imposing such punishment, procedure as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 has to be followed. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision of this Court in case of Rajesh Bhagat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.588 of 2016, decided on 04.1.2022) as also decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of State of M.P. Ors. Vs. N.S. Chouhan (Writ Appeal No.33 of 2013, decided on 17.09.2014).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that petitioners are inflicted with minor punishment and therefore respondent authorities after issuing show cause notice, considering reply submitted by petitioners, have passed impugned order of 4/9 punishment Annexure P-1. Proceeding initiated against petitioners is in fair manner and in the entire writ petition there is no specific mention that any irregularity has been committed by the authority while passing order of punishment Annexure P-1. He contended that respondent authorities have considered the reply submitted by petitioners and it was found to be unsatisfactory and thereafter order of punishment is passed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.
6. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to have a glance of relevant Rule under the Rules of 1966. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 provides for penalty which is reproduced 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;"
7. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 envisages procedure for imposing minor penalty which is also reproduced hereunder:-
"16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government 5/9 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;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and
(e) consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary.
(1-a) xxx xxx xxx (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the commission, if any;6/9
(vi) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, and
(vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor."
8. Perusal of aforementioned Rule 16 would show that under Rule 16 (1) (a), it is provided in categorical terms that after imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken which has an effect of imposing of penalty without serving a charge sheet on delinquent, without giving him reasonable opportunity to defend, is prohibited.
9. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ku. Shailja R. Jeswani Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [2000( 3) MPHT 85 (NOC), has held that notice cannot be construed as a proposal to take action against the petitioner with regard to imputation of misconduct and quashed the order imposing minor penalty.
10. In the case of Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1967 MPLJ 528) , a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clearly held that merely giving a notice to the Government servant saying that he is guilty of certain lapse or misconduct and asking him to show cause against the punishment of withholding of increments is not sufficient. 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, 7/9 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 to the Government servant saying that he is guilty of certain lapse or misconduct and asking him to show cause against the punishment of withholding of increments is not sufficient. The Government servant must be informed of the allegations against him and the material on which they are based. In the present case, the second notice, which was issued to the applicant on 15th April 1963, was, as stated in the return itself, on the basis of report of enquiry which was held in July 1954. A copy of that report should have been supplied to the petitioner for enabling him to meet the charge of negligence levelled against him and to show that he did not deserve any punishment."8/9
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 180 has observed thus:
"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."
12. In the case at hand, petitioners have been served only with show-cause notice and thereafter nothing has been done and the impugned order holding them guilty of misconduct imposing minor penalty withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect has been passed and they have not been served with imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1966. Further, there is complete non- compliance of Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1966 as no opinion has been formed by the disciplinary authority as to why inquiry is not necessary.
13. For the foregoing discussions and decisions as referred to above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of punishment dated 24.03.2025 withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect is hereby quashed.
9/9
14. As this Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of punishment holding that procedure as prescribed under Rule 16 (1 )
(a) and 16 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1966 is not followed and it is without issuing charge sheet and initiating departmental enquiry proceeding, respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiate proceeding following due process of law if they so desire.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen