Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2023WPS/1713/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition challenging departmental punishment and cancellation of police promotion. Held that penalty imposed via show-cause notice without enquiry violated natural justice. Restored promotion and remitted matter for fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders (29.10.2018 and 05.12.2018) set aside; matter remitted for fresh enquiry per Rule 16; promotion order restored.

Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 1713 of 2019

¶5

Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Dashi Ram Suryavanshi aged about 37 years, Presently posted as Subedar at Office of Superintendent of Police, Police Line (Karhi) Mungeli R/o Village Kosmanda, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

07.12.2023

¶15

The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure- P/1 issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur dated 29.10.2018, whereby the order of promotion dated 06.08.2018 has been cancelled wherein the petitioner was promoted to the post of Reserved Inspector from post of Subedar on the ground that punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed in departmental enquiry vide order dated 25.10.2017 and 29.09.2017, respectively. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 05.12.2018 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶16

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Subedar in the Police Department and at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted in Mungeli on the post of Subedar. On 25.12.2013, one Constable/Trade Barber namely, Mr. Parmeshwar Shrivas cut his own hand and a report was made that on account of harassment extended by the

¶17

¶18

petitioner, he cut the veins of his wrist. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police, Mungeli and it was found that the said Constable was himself responsible for such an act. On 13.06.2016, the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to the effect that there is a complaint against him as he harassed the Constable (Trade Barber namely, Parmeshwar Shrivas) and on account of such harassment, he cut veins of his wrist. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice on 30.08.2016 and denied the allegations made against him. An internal inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli and the allegations were found proven and thereafter, punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was passed on 25.10.2017.

¶19

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2017. Against that order, a second appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure- P/2). The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reserved Inspector vide order dated 06.08.2018 and while department proceedings were going on against him, he was holding the post of Reserved Inspector, but on account of imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, the Director General of Police, Raipur vide order dated 29.10.2019 cancelled the promotion order. The petitioner has challenged both the orders i.e. the order of stoppage of one increment as well as the order of cancellation of promotion.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'CCA Rules, 1966') apply to the Police Department. He would further submit that a minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner and the same is evident from the punishment inflicted on the petitioner and the category of penalty is given in Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966. He

¶21

¶22

would also submit that Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1966 says about the procedure for imposing minor penalties. He would further argue that Rule 16(1) specifically talks about the procedure for imposing penalties wherein the disciplinary authority has to follow the procedure contemplated under sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966, but in the present case, the same has not been complied with, therefore, the order inflicting punishment as affirmed by the superior authorities is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the order of cancellation of the promotion is also bad in law as the same is the outcome of the order of imposition of punishment. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the matters of Rudranarayan Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , W.P.(S) No. 2119 of 2011 and Sanjay Kumar Suryawanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Other , W.P.(S) No. 7223 of 2018 .

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned. He would further submit that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the statements of the witnesses were recorded and consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment. He would also submit that the disciplinary authority was empowered to impose punishment and the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the two superior authorities. He would further contend that as the punishment was imposed on the petitioner, therefore, the order of promotion was cancelled vide Annexure- P/1. He would also contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

In Rudranarayan Singh (supra) it was observed by this Court:-

¶26

8. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the

¶27

¶28

observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) wherein in paragraph 3 of the judgment it has been held as under:

¶29

“(3) While we agree with the first proposition of the High

¶30

Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “ ” withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.”

¶31

9 . Likewise, in the case of Lakshmi Shankar Prasad (supra) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 3 of its judgment has held has follows:

¶32

“3. ...After the initiation of the fresh proceeding, though an

¶33

explanation was called for from the delinquent, but the impugned order of punishment indicates that the disciplinary authority has not recorded a finding about the guilt of the delinquent of different charges which were levelled against him as well as the consideration of the explanation given by the delinquent to the charges levelled against. In such circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the order of punishment on a conclusion that the disciplinary authority did not record a finding about the guilt of the delinquent nor has it recorded any reasoning for arriving at such conclusion.”

¶34

10. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court also recently in the case of Raj Kapoor Singh Parihar (supra) in paragraphs 8, 9 & 10 of its judgment has held as under:

¶35

“8. At the cost of repetition, in the opinion of this Court, whether it is an enquiry under Rule 14 or under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to issue a specific charge sheet against the petitioner. The delinquent employee must know about the nature of accusation against him. This enables him to put forth his defence in a reasonable, adequate and effective manner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and denied the charges in toto. On merits also, he submitted his detailed reply. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted. The prosecution witnesses were not examined in presence of the petitioner nor he was permitted to lead his evidence. The alleged enquiry reports, Annexures P/16 and P/17, are the reports based on some material collected behind the back of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the said enquiry reports are no reports in the eye of law, worth the name. This is trite law

¶36

¶37

that even in minor penalty proceedings if the charges are denied. It is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to conduct a full-fledged enquiry.

¶38

This view is taken by the Supreme Court in (O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India and others, 2001 9 SCC 180). In the present case, without conducting any enquiry as per rules and after taking into account the ex parte enquiry reports, Annexure P/16 and P/17, the disciplinary authority intended to punish the petitioner. The petitioner submitted detailed reply. The disciplinary authority in his punishment order although reproduced the stand of the petitioner taken in his reply, did not assign a single reason as to why the said defence or reasons not suit him. AS per Rules 15(3), 16(1)(d) and 16(2)(viii) of CCA Rules, the disciplinary authority is under a statutory obligation to assign reasons for his conclusion. Thus, this is not only the requirement of principle of natural justice, it is the mandate of the governing Statute, i.e., CCA Rules.

¶39

Now coming to the facts of the present case, from a perusal of the order Annexure- P/2, the order passed by the second appellate authority, it is apparent that the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the first appellate authority has been affirmed and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed, wherein the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect has been imposed. From a bare perusal of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1966 which deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties, it is quite clear that the authority has to follow the procedure contemplated under sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14 of CCA Rules 1966, but in the present case, sub-rules (2) to (23) of rule 14 have not been followed. Only a show cause notice was issued which was replied to by the petitioner thereafter, behind the back of the petitioner statements of witnesses were recorded and on the basis of the statements of those witnesses, the impugned punishment has been imposed. Further, respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any show cause notice cancelled the promotion order whereby the

¶40

¶41

petitioner was promoted to the post of the Reserved Inspector from the post of Subedar vide order dated 06.08.2018, therefore, the order dated 29.10.2018 as well as the order imposing punishment as affirmed by the Director General of Police vide order dated 05.12.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

¶42

Consequently, the petition is allowed . Both the orders i.e. order dated 29.10.2018 and order dated 05.12.2018 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to initiate the departmental enquiry afresh strictly in accordance with Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1966. The corollary of setting aside the order Annexure- P/1 would be that the order of promotion issued in favour of the petitioner is restored.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

vatti

Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Smt. Lachhani Bai and Anr. Vs Ceo,Cg. Electricity Board and Anr.

Leelamber Prasad Kashyap Vs S. Jayvardhan

(Deleted) Rajendra Prasad Dubey,(Died) Through Lrs Vs Alok Kumar

Nand Kishore Choubey (Died) Vs Mani Ram

Bhagwat Prasad Gadewal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tularam And Ors. Vs Devcharan And Anr.