Allowed

Anil Kumar Katyal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2014WPC/1719/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to quash an enquiry report regarding misappropriation of Panchayat funds. Court held preliminary hearing unnecessary for penalty imposition; report requires higher authority action.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; departmental proceedings pending resolution of moral responsibility considerations. Preliminary hearing provisions upheld as necessary safeguards against arbitrary action.

Anil Kumar Katyal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR

¶2

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.:

¶3

/2014

¶4

PETITIQNER : l)'Anil Kumar Katyal, S/o Shri Jeevanlal Katyal, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Barekelkala, ^.. •. P.0. Nartora, Thana Patewa, Tehsil & District Mahasamund .....^^ (Chhattisgarh), working as subengineer ^-^y -)^y~~ ^-^' (^ VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

1. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶7

1. The Collector Raigarh also officiating District Programme Coordinator, Mahatama Gandhi NAREGA, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

1. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

1. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

¶10

¶11

Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/2270F THECONSTITUTION OFINDrA

¶13

•s

¶14

¶15

^/' f^'2'"^^. '"%• ' •
S is-x^ 1 ^
'^|S,X|HC—78
I
ta.
D,
^

¶16

^T5E( ^iraTcTO; »Tl1tf''l<,, I»lctl«y

¶17

WCT giw^^.R^>^....^13. !^.^ 201

¶18

aii^i 4=<<»i (ictFyiEi)

¶19

sii^r^iTR-) wn^n^iaRflNi	?sn{?R^ri?asii^'	.*wTriVI'fwitidi^ts'<fl<Rtttfi< ^isiRmsii^i
	SB;Hon'bteShriManindraMnh, 83^9.2014	n sva.J.
	Shri HarshWfardhan, ShriAdhiraj Surana, Dy.G.f^ 5on advancecopy. couns^	lforIhepetitioner. forthe StBte/r^pondents No. 1,3 &
	Heard on admission.
	e The writ petitioner has B! report dated 28/02ff014 by whic^ Divisionat Officer (Revenue) has vrorksofPanchayat, seriousfinanc} and jtalsoinydv^ ihepetitioner. Learned counsel for ttie p^i regard tottie fanclion ofPanchay^ a committee; He submitethatinrell aoy allegations ofcorruption or irr refer ttiematter for enquiryby Lok(( Gandhi National Rural Employrnenj being initiated under those provi^ have submitted his defence Committee has carried m.rt end affording any opportunity of he^ l I ^ (

'^w^^^Sw^s^s^

XI-HG—78

75Bi •*iiyipiAi,yTfl'tf'it», [^^i'yy-

¶24

3n^rq3RR(^3a^P)

¶25

	sn^i^iiR-I ?rarr3n^?3iirisR	^snwaisaan^i-2-	*l«?ri41.1WH^S'9^^<Rl<di< ^siRmsii^r
		wV submitted that as ttie &iquiry Comnf againstdie petitioner onthe alJegatiorf fcnds includingrecoveryofhugeamoi(	the Enquiry Committee to afford a
•M. k-		fonder the Mshstama Gandhi Nationl Ischeme and tfie Collector asked fte faet fte mattCT enquired. The	committeeofsix officers includng hiinl

•^

-^"

'XI-HC—78

,J-^,;'T-^

^eET'RlTqRra, QTTl'a'K?, Riciwy

¶31

^wn 5>nN;^.^.f»..1^3.^-^201

¶32

OT^I TpRi (1°^P?P )

¶33

OT^qiIK-lit> wnail^sbwi*	[3111^1 giRferft.iwnai^l^^iRi^ ^iaiRman^i
	proceedings preliminary ofttieviewthat correctness prelimnary necessary hasallowed darifiedtfiat pefflionerto againstlhe enquiry fortfiepetitioner departmentalproceed againsthim alsostatedthst thebasisof roundswhidi thepetition Sd-/ ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge

¶34

"^.

¶35

Anil Kumar Katyal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Katyal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Dhaner Vs M.P.Laghu Udyog Nigam and Ors.

Rohit Singh Tanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Reshamlal and Ors. Vs Lakeshari and Anr.

Jai Ambey Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Basnajhar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.kamlesh Shukla Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. And Ors.

Dharamcharan Panda and Anr. Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.