Allowed

Ashok Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2019WPS/4047/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that the High Court cannot impose a major penalty like stoppage of increment with cumulative effect without issuing a fresh show cause notice. The impugned order restricting cumulative effect was modified to comply with this principle. Writ petition allowed with direction to modify the departmental order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified to sanction stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect.

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 4047 of 2012

¶5

Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 51 Years Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Secretary Urban Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur Distt. Raiapur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Commissioner Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Revenue Officer Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Sunil kumar Sahu, Advocate
For State	:	Ms. Astha Shukla. P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 & 3	:	Mr. Saurabh Sharma. Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶14

01/02/2019

¶15

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P- 1 dated 6.03.2012 impugned order is to a punishment imposed upon the petitioner of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The solitary ground that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner when he was served with a couple of show cause notices before punishment was imposed which is Annexure P-4 dated 15.09.2011, 22.9.2011 and 22.10.2011 and again on 24.10.2011. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the vide show cause notice dated 22.10.2011 the

¶16

¶17

respondents had proposed the petitioner to be inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. However, when the punishment order was imposed the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect.

¶18

This according to the petitioner was bad in law for the reason that respondents could not have inflicted the petitioner with a punishment contrary to the proposed punishment reflected in the show cause notice.

¶19

The perusal of the record would also reveal that this Court also vide order dated 17.09.2012 had granted interim protection to the petitioner holding that impugned order will not have the cumulative effect until further orders. From the perusal of the record and also on perusal of the return filed by the respondent it also reveals that pursuant to the show cause notice dated 22.10.2011, the Department as such has not conducted a detailed departmental enquiry nor any further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner whereby the department had called upon his explanation in respect of the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. In the absence of any such proceedings drawn by the respondent after having issued with a show cause notice proposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent could not have thereafter given the punishment which otherwise has the effect of a major penalty.

¶20

It is settled position of law that an employee can only be punished of the punishment for which he was show caused with proposed

¶21

¶22

punishment. If at all a different punishment had to be given then he should have been another show cause of the new punishment. The impugned order to that extent stands modified to the extent that the impugned order shall henceforth be read as stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, Instead of stoppage one annual increment with cumulative effect.

¶23

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶26

Ankit/jyotij

Ashok Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobiya Bano Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs State

Alok Kumar Swarnkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxman Prasad Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ruma Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.