Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. v. H.P. Kindo

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2012WA/203/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the quashing of a departmental penalty order. The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that the penalty was based on no evidence and defective procedure, specifically citing the non-supply of documents and lack of cross-examination opportunity to the employee.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs H.P. Kindo — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

y-aiB WSK f M

¶2

COVRT FEES DOENWTED BY NOTIFICATION N0.9960rt>iS7BflOaB/C.G./05 AS SPEClFlEDlNSCH@)ULE I S H OFTHE COURT FEES ACT 1870.

¶3

¶4

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

'2-GS WRIT APPEAL N0. /2011

¶6

fARISING OUT OF W.P.fSI N0. 2381/20081

¶7

'l.

¶8

APPELLANTS :

¶9

RESPONDENT N0.2/STATE

¶10

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Through: The Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Secretary,
Q^..>^ ...•'"
^<.''v'' Government of
J^v--"<^^" ..-••
General
.^ .2-'^-"a^"
Department,
»?.•'•'<•^.'••'
c.'"*'' ^..--' Mantralaya,
..^'
.•?»• Chhattisgarh

¶12

Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration

¶13

Department, DKS Bhawan,

¶14

Mantralaya, Raipur,

¶15

Chhattisgarh (^p.^p.itiiSicN"'1<-3'^J

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

RESPONDENT PETITIONER

¶18

H.P. Kindo, aged about 58 years S/'o. Shri P.S. Kindo, Occupation: Service, presently posted as Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Deveiopment Department, Raipur (CG) R/o. V4 4 Building , Near Krishna Talkies, Pjsa!i, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶19

AP^EAL UNDER SECTION CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAi- TQ DIVISIQN BENCH) ACT, 2006

¶20

Being aggrieved by the order dated 7 March, 2011 passed by learned Singie Bench of this Hon'ble Gourt in W.P. (S) No. 2381/2008 whereby the petition of the petitioner was allowed. Certified copy of the order dated 7"'th March, 2011 is being riled herewith as Anriexuj^-A^i. The present appeal is p.referred on the..foliowing amongst other grounds:-

¶21

A. FACTS OF THE CASE

¶22

r-r^-/^ ^<

¶23

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶24

DIVISION BENCH

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ.

¶26

WRIT APPEAL N0. 203/2011

¶27

APPELLANTS

¶28

State of Chhattisgarh and another

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

H.P. Kindo

WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(11 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHt ACT. 2006.

¶33

Present:- Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the

¶34

State/ appellants.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(Passedon 11/07/2012)

¶37

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶38

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J:-

¶39

This is an appeal filed by the respondents/State of W.P. (S) No. 2381/2008 under Section 2(1) of Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dated 07/03/2011 passed in aforementioned writ petition.

¶40

By impugned order, the writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and set aside the penalty order passed against him.

,<*•

-^a x

--fif

So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and in consequence justified in quashing the penalty imposed upon the writ petidoner?

¶45

The respondent at the relevant time was working as Chief Executive Officer in State services with one statutory authority created by the State known as (SADA -Bhilai) when an inquiry was set up against him for conimission of certain misconduct in discharge of his duties. In this inquiry, since the charge levelled against him was held proved in which he had participated and hence he was awarded punishment of one stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect. It is against this punishment^{order,thewrit} petitioner (respondent),^filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petition and quashed^{theimpugnedorderof} penalty,^whichisnow under challenge.

¶46

This is what the writ Court held for quashing the penally^{orderimpugnedinthewrit} pedtion.

¶47

"23. For the reasons nientioned hereinabove and the principles of law laid down as aforestated to the facts of the present case where the finding was not in consonance with the charge sheet, further finding was recorded on the basis of a docuinent not supplied to the petitioner and on the basis of deposition of two un-listed witnesses for which it appears no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to crossexainine theni, the enquiry report is vitiated and quashed."

¶48

efc'

¶49

•"^.K&~^ :Ai!;.1 -"'l /

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no case to differ with the finding of the writ Court quoted supra and hence are inclined to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

In our opinion this does appear to us to be a case where flrstly the finding of the inquiry officer was found to be based on no evidence in support of charge and secondly it was also found to be based on certain documents which were not supplied to the writ petitioner (delinquent^{employee)whichcaused} prejudice^tohim.It is this issue, which was examined by the writ Court with reference to the nature of the charge levelled against the writ petitioner, evidence adduced, witnesses examined and documents supplied and relied upon in the inquiry by the inquiry officer. It was noticed that swe document in the nature of inquiry report in the case was relied upon by the inquiry officer but it was neither supplied to the delinquent employee (writ petitioner) and nor was proved properly. Similarly, it was also noticed that no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to cross examine some witnesses properly. In effect therefore, it was held that it is a case of either no evidence in support of charge or it is a case of defective evidence and hence it was not possible to pass any punishment order holding the charge as proved.

¶52

A finding of this nature was therefore sufficient for the writ Court to quash the penalty order irapugned in the writ petition by the delinquent employee. In other words, if the delinquent employee was not afforded full opportfanity of being heard in the departmental inquiry and if he was not supplied full documents, relied upon in

¶53

¶54

such inquiry proceedings, then certainly it was a case causing prejudice to the such employee.

¶55

Since the writ Court has gone in detail on facts and then proceeded to record the finding to which we concur, and hence we find no good ground to take any other view than the one taken by the writ Court.

¶56

It was also brought to our notice, that in the meandme and after the decision of the writ Court, the respondent was also promoted and given higher cadre and pay scale by the State. This also shows that even the State seems to have accepted the verdict of the writ Court and accordingly given to the writ petitioner higher cadre and pay scale.

¶57

In the light of these facts coupled with findings of the writ Court which the appellants were not able to successfully assail with reference to the record of the case in this appeal except saying that they are bad, we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit.

¶58

In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

No cost.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

AbhayManoharSap re
Judge

¶62

Tiwari

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. v. H.P. Kindo

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. v. H.P. Kindo

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Newar Singh Vs State of C.G.

Narayan Singh Uike Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Satrughan Yadav Vs Sakun Yadav

Ram Ratan Yadav Vs Smt. Syamabai

S.E.C.L. through G.M. and Ors. Vs Murari Lal Agrawal