News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 194 | 2026:CGHC:11825
March 12, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh in Bilaspur has set aside a disciplinary penalty imposed on a polling officer in connection with the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, ruling that the District Election Officer had no legal authority to impose punishment after the election results were declared.
The decision came in a writ petition filed by J.K. Mehta, a resident of Bilaspur, who had challenged an order passed by the Collector-cum-District Election Officer of Korba. The order had imposed a minor penalty on him by stopping one annual increment without cumulative effect for alleged irregularities during election duty.
According to court records, Mehta was appointed as the presiding officer for Booth No. 11 in Limru, Korba during the 2019 general elections. Polling took place on April 23, 2019. Later, on May 13, 2019, the District Election Officer issued a show-cause notice accusing him of irregularities during the polling process. Mehta submitted his reply to the notice on May 17, 2019.
The results of the Lok Sabha election were declared on May 23, 2019. However, nearly one and a half months later, on July 10, 2019, the District Election Officer issued an order imposing the penalty on Mehta. Challenging this action, Mehta approached the High Court arguing that once the election results were declared, the District Election Officer no longer had jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against officers who had been deployed for election duty.
The case was heard by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, who examined the legal provisions governing election duty. The court referred to Section 28A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which states that returning officers, presiding officers, polling officers and other officials involved in the conduct of elections are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission of India from the date the election notification is issued until the declaration of results.
During this period, these officers remain under the control, supervision and disciplinary authority of the Election Commission. The High Court noted that the disciplinary power during the election process rests solely with the Election Commission and not with local administrative authorities.
Referring to earlier judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the court observed that when officers are on election duty and deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission, only the Commission has the authority to take disciplinary action against them. Any action taken by other authorities without proper authorization would be invalid.
Applying these legal principles, the court concluded that the penalty order dated July 10, 2019 was issued after the declaration of election results and by an authority that did not possess the legal jurisdiction to impose such punishment. The court also noted that there was no record showing that the Election Commission had delegated its disciplinary powers to the District Election Officer in this case.
As a result, the High Court held that the penalty order was without legal authority and set it aside. The writ petition was allowed, with the court directing that both parties bear their own costs.
The ruling clarifies the limits of administrative powers in election-related matters and reinforces that disciplinary control over election staff during the election period rests exclusively with the Election Commission.
Case Reference : In Writ Petition (Service) No. 5401 of 2019, J.K. Mehta vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others, the petitioner was represented by Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate, Respondents No. 1 and 3 were represented by Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate, and Respondent No. 2 was represented by Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
