Quashed

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2014WPS/3946/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that an appellate authority violating the mandate of Rule 29 of the CG Civil Services Rules by imposing a penalty without affording a hearing is ultra vires. The impugned order imposing stoppage of increments was quashed. The authority is directed to issue appropriate orders following the rule of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing penalty by the Additional Collector was quashed. The appellate authority is at liberty to take recourse to Rule 29 and pass appropriate orders after following law.

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COUR’ OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH _ : HON BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J W (S)^No.3946of200

¶2

PETITIONER i Raghunandan Prasad Sahu Versus

¶3

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another

¶4

Shrl Aml S Pandey, counsel for petmoner Shrl Akhllesh Kumar Panel Lawyer forthe State

¶5

‘ ORAL ORDER

¶6

(07/08/2014)

¶7

'by Petitioner is aggrieved the order dated 26th May 2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Addmonal Collector Bilaspur and the order dated 03/08/2007 (Annexure P/3) agam passed by the Additional Collector Bilaspur rejectlng the petitioner s reVlew application.

¶8

On receiving complaintfrom Prabhunarayan Dhruv S/o Santosh Kumar Dhruv against the petitioner and one Firoz Memon both Patwaris and ArVInd DiXIt TahSildar regarding illegality and irregularity in creating the revenue records, an enquiry was constituted by the Sub DiVisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur. At the end of ehquiry proceeding the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed^an orderpn 11/11/2004 imposing penalty^ofstoppageof two increments without cumulative effect against Krishna Kumar Pathak and Firoz Memon whereas the petitioner was issued warning.

¶9

Krishna Kumar Pathak preferred an appeal before the Additional 'vide Collector, Bilaspur which-é Was decided order Annexure P/2 on 20/05/2005. Whiie deciding ihe appeai, the Additionai Coiiector reduced the punishment^imposed against the said Mr. Krishna Kumar Pathak, however, at the same time he imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect against the^{‘petitioner} and Firoz Memon. The review petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has not been heard before imposing penalty, has also been dismissed vide Annexure P/3.

¶10

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

lt is well settled prijnciple of law that if any’order visits with civil consequences, the same istvitlated, if passed without affording an opportunity

¶12

é @

¶13

of hearing to the employee($ (See:^{ShrawanKumarJhaandothersv.Stateof} Bihar and others1, D.K. Yé V v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Others2, Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu Univ e‘ ty^{&Othersa,CanaraBank&Others.} v. Debasis Das & Others", VivekanandV‘Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank^Ltd. & Others5, Mohd. Sartaj & another v. State ot'EUP. & Others6, inderpreet Singh Kahlon & others Vs. State of Punjab & others7, Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Otherss, State of Manipur 8t§Others v. Y. Token Singh & Othersg, Jaswant Singh Pratap Singh Jadeja i}. Rajkot Municipai Corporation & another“), Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Lashkar“ and State of Punjab & Others v. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) Through LRs.12).

¶14

In course of hearing learned State counsel has relied upon Rule²⁹ of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The said provision reads as under :-

¶15

“29. (1)^{NotwithStandinganythingcontained} in these rules except rule 11i:

¶16

¥ (i) the GoVernor' or (ii) the head of a department dlrectly under the State Government In the case of a Government servant servmg In a department or office (not being the secretariat), under the control of such head of a department, or

¶17

(iii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date ofthe order proposed to be reviewed, or

¶18

(iv) any othLerauthority specified in this behalf by the Governor by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed insuch general or special order may at any time, either on his gritsl. own motion or otherwise call for the galnd records of any inquiry review any order made under these

¶19

1AIR 1991 sc 310 2 (1993)^3scc259 3AIR 1998 sc 3261 4 (2003)^4soc557 5 (2005)^5soc337 6 (2006)^2scc315 7 AIR 2006 sc 2571 8 (2007)^4soc54 9 (2007)^5scc65 1D (2007)^10scc71 11 (2008)^2scc479 12 (2008)^7scc405

¶20

rules or under the rulx‘es‘ epealed by rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed but from w ch^noappeal has been preferred or from, which no appeal allowed, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and may-

¶21

(a) confirm; mpdify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm; reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order; tor^{imposeanypenaltywhereno} penalty has been imposed; or‘: I,

¶22

(c) remit the? case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may conSIder proper in the Circumstances of ’ the case or (d) pass^suchother i orders as it may deem fit: ‘iorder Provided thatp imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any eviewing^{authorityunlesstheGoyernment} ‘ servant concerned hasrbeen given a reasonable opportunity of making a representatipn’ against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose' any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 or to enhance the penalty^Imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties speCified in those clauses no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner land down in rule 14 and except after consultation With the Commissmn where such consultation is necessary. ;§i Prowded furthe H,that no power to reVIew shall be exerCIsed i by the head of department unless—

¶23

(i the authority which made the order in appeal or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie where no appeal has been preferred is subordinate to him " li it 7. ln the case in hand e‘) ir n if the Additional Collector being the appellate authority, deSIred to take act" 1 n under Rule 29(1)(m) of the CCA Rules 1966 it was obligatory on the a u ority to prov1de opportunity of hearing to the petitioner^asrequired und e a r that even under Rule 29, an order imposing cannot be passed^by the appellate authority Without gIVIng opportunity of heanng to the person concerned Thus t

¶24

considering from any anué the impugned order is not sustainable Accordingly, the order Is quashed however the appellate authority, If It so ‘ deSIres would be at^liberty to ke recourse to Rule^{29oftheRules1966and} pass^{appropriateordersInaccordanceWithlaw}

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.j.c.meshram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Lalan Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Uttam Kumar Ware Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Ramratan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Dilip Kumar Mishra Vs Central Reserve Police Force and Anr.

Smt.lela Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.