B.R. THAKUR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010379122026 2026:CGHC:45365
SOURABH
BHILWAR
NAFR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.28
10:37:06 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7272 of 2026
B.R. Thakur S/o Shri Ganpat Thakur, Aged About 59 Years I/c Executve
Engineer, Public Works Deptt, R/o H. No. KE 9, Kautilya Enclave
Colony Behind Harsh Tower Devpuri, Raipur, Raipur Dist, C.G. State
Pin. 492001
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, PWD Secretariat,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G. State
2 - Additional Secretary, Public Works Deptt, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur Dist C.G. State.
3 - Chief Engineer, PWD, PWD Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G.
State
4 - Chief Engineer, PWD Ramanujganj Division, Ramanujganj -
Balrampur Distt, C.G. State
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

2
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment
of the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby
the respondent authorities have imposed a minor penalty of
recovery of the alleged loss caused and a major penalty of
withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.
3. Learned State counsel would raise objection regarding
maintainability of the writ petition and submit that under Rule 23 of
the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966, the petitioner has a statutory alternative
remedy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned
order has been passed in the name of the Governor, therefore,
the petitioner has directly approached this Court, because under
the provisions of the Rules of 1966, an order passed by the State
Government has been made appealable before the Governor.
5. The issue fallen for consideration in this petition has been set at
rest by this Court in the matter of G. S. Dewangan v. State of

3
Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.102/2012), decided on
30.01.2012, wherein the following has been held:-
"13. The argument raised by the petitioner is otherwise
also fallacious when it is examined and considered in
the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs.
Union of India and others {(1999) 6 SCC 667}. In the
said matter, an argument was raised before the
Supreme Court that when a Minister passes an order
as Member of the Union Cabinet, it actually performs
the function on behalf of the President of India and not
merely as a Minister individually. While dealing with
the argument and after referring to the provisions
contained in Articles 73 to 77 of the Constitution
concerning the executive power of the Union as also
with respect to executive power of the State contained
in Article 166 of the Constitution, it has been held in
para-26 of the judgment that 'though an order is
issued in the name of the President, it does not
become an order of the President passed by him
personally, but remains, basically and essentially, the
order of the Minister on whose advice the President
had acted and passed that order. It was further held
therein that as required by Article 77 (1) , all executive
actions of the Government of India have to be
expressed in the name of the President; but this would
not make that order an order passed by the President
personally.'
14. In the opinion of this Court, the above judgment of
the Supreme Court is complete answer to the
argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court holds that even if the impugned

4
order of suspension is issued after expressing the
same to have been passed for and on behalf of the
Governor of Chhattisgarh, it does not become an
order passed by the Governor himself and remedy of
filing an appeal before His Excellency, the Governor is
available to the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rules,
1966."
6. The above referred matter of G. S. Dewangan (supra) was
approved by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.80 of 2012 (G.
S. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), decided on
15.02.2012.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of
preferring an appeal before the Governor. In the matter of State
of H. P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and
another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499, the Supreme Court has
held that when an statutory remedy is available, the High Court
should not entertain a writ petition.
8. For the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. The petitioner may avail the alternative remedy
within a period of 30 days from today.

Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar