Under Rule 14, the disciplinary authority must consider the defence before appointing inquiry and presenting officers.

The petitioner, appointed as a Lab Attendant on a temporary basis on 12 September 2011, was subsequently confirmed with effect from 31 October 2013.

After rendering more than 14 years of service, departmental proceedings were initiated against him concerning the experience certificate allegedly submitted at the time of appointment.

An earlier enquiry report dated 9 December 2024 culminated in his termination on 15 May 2025; that order was set aside by the High Court in WPS No. 6213 of 2025, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Thereafter, although the petitioner submitted his reply to a subsequent show-cause notice, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 16 July 2026 initiating a fresh departmental enquiry and simultaneously appointing the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority could appoint the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer simultaneously with issuance of the charge-sheet, without first affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit and have considered his written statement of defence under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966.

Whether the initiation of fresh departmental proceedings on the same foundational allegations, after the earlier enquiry and the setting aside of the termination order, was legally impermissible or otherwise warranted interference at the preliminary stage.

Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties.

Under Rule 14(4), the Government servant must be afforded an opportunity to submit a written statement of defence to the articles of charge.

Under Rule 14(5), only after considering that written statement may the Disciplinary Authority decide whether to inquire into the charges itself or appoint an Inquiring Authority.

Appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer before receipt and consideration of the written defence is therefore premature and contrary to the prescribed statutory procedure.

The Court found that the impugned order dated 16 July 2026 appointed both the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer along with the charge-sheet, without first allowing the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence and without the Disciplinary Authority considering that defence.

This sequence violated the mandatory procedural order contemplated by Rules 14(4) and 14(5), irrespective of the State’s contention that the enquiry was at an initial stage and that the petitioner could raise objections before the Enquiry Officer.

Although the respondents were entitled to proceed afresh pursuant to the liberty granted in the earlier judgment, that liberty did not dispense with compliance with the statutory procedure.

The Court consequently treated the simultaneous appointments as premature, while refraining from expressing any opinion on the substance of the allegations.

The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days of receiving the Court’s order, after which the Disciplinary Authority was required to objectively consider the reply and take an appropriate decision under Rule 14(5) before proceeding further.

The Court expressly left the merits of the charges open.