MANOJ KHARE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010322112026 2026:CGHC:38563
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6326 of 2026
Manoj Khare S/o Shambhu Prasad Khare Aged About 47 Years Posted
As Lab Attedant, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C. G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary Department Of Tourism
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G.
JYOTI
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.09.02
10:52:21 +0530
2. Under Secretary Department Of Tourism Mahanadi, Bhawan
Mantralaya Atal Nagar District Raipur C. G.
3. Institute Of Hotel Management, Catering Technology And Applied
Nutrition, Through Its, Principal, Uparwara, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur
District Raipur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along
with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate
For Respondents/
State
: Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S.S. Badgaiya, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)
Order on Board
01/09/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Lab Attendant on temporary basis on
12.09.2011 and his services were subsequently confirmed with
effect from 31.10.2013. After rendering more than 14 years of
service, the petitioner has once again been subjected to a

2
departmental enquiry on the allegation relating to the experience
certificate submitted at the time of his appointment. It is submitted
that earlier proceedings on the same foundational allegations had
already been initiated, pursuant to which an enquiry report dated
09.12.2024 was submitted and the petitioner's services were
terminated vide order dated 15.05.2025. The said termination
order was subsequently set aside by this Court in WPS No.
6213/2025, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in
accordance with law. Thereafter, pursuant to the subsequent
show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply, but instead
of considering the same objectively, the respondents have again
initiated a fresh departmental enquiry vide impugned order dated
16.07.2026.
2. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to Rules
14 and 15 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short Rules of 1966), as the Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer have been appointed
simultaneously with issuance of the charge-sheet, without
affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit his written
statement of defence. The repeated initiation of enquiry
substantially on the same allegations, despite the earlier enquiry
proceedings and the orders passed by this Court, is arbitrary,
reflects non-application of mind and amounts to abuse of the
disciplinary process.
3. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the
impugned order dated 16.07.2026 has been passed in

3
accordance with law and the respondents are well within their
jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings against the
petitioner in respect of the experience certificate furnished by him
at the time of his appointment. It is submitted that the earlier order
of termination was set aside by this Court with liberty to the
respondents to proceed afresh, and therefore, initiation of the
present enquiry cannot be termed as a repeated or impermissible
enquiry. It is further submitted that the allegation regarding the
experience certificate is a serious matter touching upon the
petitioner's eligibility for appointment and requires proper
adjudication in a regular departmental enquiry. Learned State
counsel further submits that the appointment of the Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer along with issuance of the charge-
sheet does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and the
petitioner can raise all his objections and submit his defence
before the Enquiry Officer. It is therefore submitted that the
departmental enquiry is at its initial stage and the petitioner has
an efficacious opportunity to participate in the proceedings and
establish his case. Hence, no interference with the impugned
order is warranted at this stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the submissions, this Court is of the view that the
grievance of the petitioner regarding the manner in which the

4
impugned departmental enquiry has been initiated deserves
consideration.
6. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 prescribes the procedure for imposing
major penalties. In particular, under Rule 14(4), on receipt of the
articles of charge, the Government servant is required to be
afforded an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence
within the specified time. Thereafter, under Rule 14(5), upon
consideration of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary
Authority may inquire into the charges itself or, if it considers
necessary, appoint an Inquiring Authority for the purpose.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the impugned order dated
16.07.2026 has been issued along with the charge-sheet and the
Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer have been
appointed simultaneously, without first affording the petitioner an
opportunity to submit his written statement of defence and without
consideration of the same by the Disciplinary Authority as has
been provided under the Rules, 1966. Further, the petitioner has
already faced earlier proceedings in respect of the same
foundational allegations, pursuant to which an enquiry report
dated 09.12.2024 was submitted and the consequential order of
termination dated 15.05.2025 was set aside by this Court in WPS
No. 6213/2025, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh
in accordance with law.
8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the respondents ought to have first followed the statutory

5
procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 before
proceeding further with the departmental enquiry. The
appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer
simultaneously with issuance of the charge-sheet, without
consideration of the petitioner's defence, is therefore premature.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 is set aside to
the extent it proceeds with the appointment of the Enquiry Officer
and Presenting Officer at this stage . However, the respondents
shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance
with law. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to submit
his written statement of defence to the articles of charge within a
period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Upon receipt of such reply, the Disciplinary Authority shall
consider the same objectively and thereafter take an appropriate
decision in terms of Rule 14(5) of the Rules of 1966 and proceed
further strictly in accordance with law.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The
petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent .
SD/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti