Removal from service without completing the prescribed disciplinary inquiry violates Article 311(2) and natural justice.

The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari and served in the Revenue Department from 2004/2007. He was suspended on 6 February 2015 for alleged unauthorised absence from election duty and failure to cooperate in Panchayat General Election work.

A charge-sheet was issued alleging absence from duty, failure to assist in the distribution of election material and non-compliance with directions of superior authorities. The petitioner denied the charges in his reply. A departmental enquiry was thereafter initiated under Rules 14 and 15 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and the Tahsildar was appointed as Presenting Officer.

However, the enquiry was not completed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Instead, on 4 March 2015, the petitioner was directed to work in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer for five days, with a warning that non-compliance would result in ex parte proceedings and removal from service.

After the petitioner attended for two days and thereafter remained absent, the Sub-Divisional Officer removed him from service on 13 March 2015, relying upon the charge-sheet and the alleged non-compliance with the administrative direction.

The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected by the Collector on 13 October 2015. A subsequent appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was rejected as not maintainable. The petitioner therefore challenged the orders of removal and dismissal of his appeal before the High Court.

Whether the respondents could impose the major penalty of removal from service without completing the departmental enquiry and following the mandatory procedure under Rules 14 and 15 of the 1966 Rules?

Whether removal from service, based on the petitioner’s failure to comply with an interim administrative direction rather than on a duly recorded finding on the charges, violated the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution?

Whether the penalty of removal was disproportionate and discriminatory when another Patwari facing substantially similar allegations was awarded only stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect?

Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer possessed jurisdiction to impose the penalty of removal, having regard to the statutory power of appointment under Section 104 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959?

The Court applied Rules 14 and 15 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which require a properly conducted disciplinary enquiry, reasonable opportunity to defend, findings on each charge, supply of the enquiry report, and consideration of the employee’s representation before imposition of a major penalty.

Article 311(1) and 311(2) of the Constitution protect a civil servant from dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority and require an enquiry and reasonable opportunity of hearing before dismissal or removal.

The Court relied on Kamlesh Kumar Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(S) No. 1432 of 2020, decided on 17 September 2024, concerning the constitutional safeguards under Article 311.

It also applied the principle in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : AIR 1936 PC 253, that where the law prescribes a particular manner of exercising a power, the power must be exercised in that manner or not at all.

The Court further applied proportionality in disciplinary punishment, requiring consideration of the gravity of misconduct, past service record and treatment in comparable cases.

The Court found that although the respondents initiated proceedings under Rule 14, they did not conduct the enquiry to its logical conclusion.

No evidence-based finding was recorded on whether the charges were proved, no enquiry report was shown to have been prepared or supplied, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent against any adverse findings before removal.

The direction requiring the petitioner to work for five days in the Sub-Divisional Officer’s office, coupled with a threat of removal for non-compliance, could not substitute the statutory disciplinary procedure.

The respondents thereby shifted the basis of the proceedings from adjudication of the charge-sheet allegations to alleged disobedience of an administrative direction.

This violated Rules 14 and 15, principles of natural justice and the constitutional protection under Article 311(2).

The Court also noted that a similarly situated Patwari, Komalchand Ravte, received only a minor penalty for substantially similar allegations, while the petitioner was removed after more than ten years of service, with no demonstrated adverse disciplinary history.

The unexplained disparity further supported the conclusion that the impugned action was unsustainable.

Since the removal was invalid on these fundamental procedural and constitutional grounds, it was unnecessary for the Court to rely solely on the disputed question of the Sub-Divisional Officer’s competence under Section 104 of the Land Revenue Code.

The respondents could not replace the prescribed disciplinary procedure with an ad hoc administrative direction.

Accordingly, the order of removal dated 13 March 2015 and the Collector’s appellate order dated 13 October 2015 were quashed.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.