Minor penalty imposed without formal notice and imputation of misconduct violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, a retired Inspector (Admn.), challenged a punishment order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Bilaspur, which withheld one increment for one year without cumulative effect

The penalty was based on a proposal forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (SP), Korba (Respondent No. 4), following a preliminary enquiry conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police

The Petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority (the IGP) failed to issue a show-cause notice or provide the enquiry report before imposing the penalty, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

The Petitioner retired in 2022 during the pendency of the dispute

1. Whether the imposition of a minor penalty without the disciplinary authority issuing a formal show-cause notice or a statement of imputations of misconduct violates the mandatory procedure under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966?

2. Whether the disciplinary authority is required to form an opinion on the necessity of an enquiry under Rule 16(1)(b) before imposing a penalty?

The Court applied Rules 10 and 16 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which prescribe the procedure for imposing minor penalties, specifically requiring that a government servant be informed in writing of the proposal to take action and the imputations of misconduct

The Court relied on Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that a mere notice of lapse is insufficient; the delinquent must be informed of specific allegations and the material evidence supporting them

The Court applied the principle from O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, establishing that even for minor penalties, an opportunity to explain charges is a minimum requirement of natural justice, and factual denials necessitate an enquiry

The Court observed that while the SP had sought an explanation from the Petitioner, the SP was not the competent disciplinary authority for the rank of Inspector

The actual disciplinary authority, the IGP, passed the punishment order solely based on the SP’s proposal and a preliminary enquiry report that was never served upon the Petitioner

The Court reasoned that under Rule 16(1)(a), the disciplinary authority is mandated to serve a charge memo or a statement of imputations to provide a "reasonable opportunity" for defense, which was bypassed in this case

The Court found that the IGP failed to comply with Rule 16(1)(b) by failing to record an opinion as to why a formal enquiry was not necessary given the factual disputes involved

The proceedings were thus deemed procedurally flawed and in violation of natural justice

The Court held that the failure to follow the statutory procedure under the Rules of 1966 rendered the penalty unsustainable

Considering the Petitioner’s age (66 years) and his retirement in 2022, the Court explicitly declined to grant the State liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings, effectively finalising the relief in favor of the Petitioner