Past Conduct Not Cited in Charge-Sheet Cannot Form Basis for Imposing Major Penalty Without Prior Notice

The Petitioner, a Peon at the Civil Court, Gariyaband, was issued a charge-sheet on 05.05.2015 for unauthorized absence from duty

A departmental inquiry found the charges proved, and the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 1) subsequently passed an order on 21.07.2016 terminating his services

In awarding this major penalty, the Authority explicitly considered the Petitioner's past service record (734 days of total leave/absenteeism), though this was not included in the original charge-sheet

The Petitioner’s appeal to the Registrar General (Respondent No. 3) was rejected on 22.06.2019

The Petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, alleging violation of natural justice and disproportionate punishment

1. Whether consideration of past records/conduct of the delinquent employee without notice vitiates the order of punishment?

2. Whether the Court, in exercise of Article 226, can re-appreciate the evidence placed in disciplinary proceedings or interfere with the quantum of punishment?

The Court applied Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1966, which prescribes penalties for misconduct

It relied on Clause 30(v) of the General Book Circular (Part-1), which mandates that if a past bad record is used to assess punishment and was not a specific charge, it must be set out in the show-cause notice

The Court followed the precedent of State of Punjab v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 857), holding that past misconduct cannot be an effective reason for dismissal unless the employee is put on notice

Regarding judicial review, it applied The State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh (2024 INSC 592), which restricts the High Court from acting as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence unless there is a grave infirmity

The Court found that while the finding of misconduct regarding the Petitioner's absence was supported by evidence and did not suffer from perversity, the procedure for determining the punishment was legally flawed.

The Disciplinary Authority had used the Petitioner's past record of 99 days of recent absence and 734 days of cumulative absence as the primary justification for the "extreme penalty" of removal.

Since this past conduct was not mentioned in the charge-sheet or the subsequent show-cause notice, its consideration violated the principles of natural justice and the State’s own circulars.

The Court reasoned that for a penalty to be legally sustainable under Rule 10, any adverse material relied upon for "added weight" in sentencing must be disclosed to the delinquent to allow for an explanation.

The High Court set aside the termination order (21.07.2016) and the appellate order (22.06.2019).

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the quantum of punishment afresh after providing the Petitioner with the past service records and a proper opportunity of hearing within four months.