Allowed

Ashwani Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Aug 2023WPS/6893/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions challenging compulsory retirement orders based on departmental enquiries, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the petitions. The Court set aside the appellate authority's order as a mechanical affirmation without reasoning. Finding the enquiry vitiated by irregularities including the enquiry officer acting as the presenting officer and violation of natural justic

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners reinstated in service without further enquiry; no arrears of pay or monetary benefits granted.

Ashwani Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6893 of 2010

¶5

Order Reserved on : 06/05/2023

¶6

Order Passed on : 17/08/2023

¶7

Ashwani Sharma, S/o Shri Janak Lal Sharma, aged about 39 years, R/o Ashok Medical Stores, Main Road, Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Inspector General of Police, Range – Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range – Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

And

¶16

WPS No.749 of 2011

¶17

C.P. Singh (Dead)

¶18

Through his Legal Representatives :

¶19

(i) Smt. Bitten Singh, W/o Late C.P. Singh, aged about 42 years,

¶20

(ii) Vishnu Pratap Singh, S/o Late C.P. Singh, aged about 29 years.

¶21

(iii)Gitandra Singh @ Jitendra Singh, S/o Late C.P. Singh, aged about 19 years.

¶22

R/o Kanpa Lodhipara, Ward No.23, in front of GT Plaza, Janghel Bada, Raipur (C.G.)

¶23

---- Petitioners

¶24

Versus

¶25

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home

¶26

¶27

Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶28

Inspector General of Police, Range – Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range – Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶30

The Superintendent of Police, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶31

---- Respondents

¶32

For Petitioners : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate in WPS No.6893/2010 and Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate in WPS No.749/2011. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. Advocate General.

¶33

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (CAV Order)

¶34

1 . Since, the aforesaid writ petitions arise out of the same order dated 15.07.2010, they are being heard and disposed off by this common order.

¶35

2 . The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 15.07.2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 30.06.1995 of compulsory retirement.

¶36

3 . The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

¶37

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning

¶38

¶39

the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.

¶40

(ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P/ 10) and consequently the order dated 30.06.1995 (Annexure P/6).

¶41

(iii) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶42

4 . Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that, on 06.04.1994, petitioner Ashwani Sharma in WPS No.6893/2010 and petitioner in WPS No.749/2011 Late C.P. Singh, along with other constables, under the supervision of one Head Constable Parghania Das Kurre, escorted one prisoner from Central Jail, Raipur to Khairagarh for attending the Courts hearing. For performing the aforesaid duty, the petitioner moved after giving duty certificate and recording Rojnamcha Sanha No.2.73 dated 05.04.1994 at about 7.50 am. The allegation asgainst the petitioners for conducting Departmental Enquiry was that they along with other Constables and one Head Constable received the prisoner from Central Jail on 06.04.1994, but a false entry has been made in the duty certificate and Rojnamcha Sanha regarding the date when the prisoner was taken for

¶43

¶44

the Court hearing and the date when accused was reentered into the jail. Despite petitioners’ satisfactory explanation, a charge sheet dated 13.06.1994 was issued and a Departmental Enquiry was initiated in which they were found partly guilty. Thereafter, on 29.05.1995, a show cause notice proposing a major penalty of dismissal from service was served upon the them. The petitioners categorically replied to the notices, however, respondent No.4 – The Superintendent of Police, Raipur, without considering the reply filed by the petitioners, passed the order of compulsory retirement by way of imposing penalty vide order dated 30.06.1995. Being aggrieved by the said order, both the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.3-Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range – Raipur, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.01.1996. Against which, they preferred an Original Application No.2850/97 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.), which after reorganization of the State of Chhattisgarh, was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh and registered as W.P.S. No.1657/2005.

¶45

Thereafter, this Court, after considering the writ petition and reply of the parties, vide order dated 11.03.2010 passed in WPS No.1657/2005 allowed the petition partly

¶46

¶47

and set-aside the order dated 20.01.1996 passed by Respondent No.3- Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners.

¶48

5 . Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent authorities filed their return (Annexure P/11 in WPS No.6893/2010 & Annexure P/12 in WPS No.749/2011) before the Tribunal justifying the legality of the impugned order on the ground of suppression of correct information from the disciplinary authority and from superior officer in respect of allegation for which the Head Constable Parghania Das Kurre was found guilty. The said allegation is not the part of even the charge sheet and this new allegation is created/improved in the return of the respondent authorities, which can, in no manner, justify the removal of the petitioners by way of compulsory retirement as the said allegation never remained the subject matter of the departmental enquiry nor any opportunity of defence has ever been given to the petitioners in respect of the same. Learned counsel further submits that despite the

¶49

¶50

order of this Court with regard to pass the order in a reasoned manner but the Appellate Authority in a mechanical manner has affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without application of mind and without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners in their appeal, by dismissing the appeal on a new ground raised on its own, which was not the subject matter of the charge sheet. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Vallikumari V. Andhra Education Society and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497, Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya V. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 560, Union of India and Another Vs. G. Ganayutham reported in (1997) 7 SCC 463, and this Court’s decisions in the matter of Laxmi Narayan Pandey V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 262 : 2013 Lab IC 1514, Ghasiram Kosariya V. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 SCC Online Chh 234 : (2011) 129 FLR 459 : (2011) 2 CGLJ 147 and Moturam & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Chh 67.

¶51

6 . Learned counsel for State/respondents submits that the Appellate Authority after following the direction passed by

¶52

¶53

this Court vide order dated 11.03.2010 in WPS No.1657/2005 and after perusal of entire record and hearing of both the parties, passed the impugned order. It is well settled law that in case of service matter the judicial review and administrative action is not impermissible and even if administrative action is harsh or in violation of the wednesbury principle, the most that can be done is that the matter is remanded back to the authority which passed the order and, in this case, the Court had already remanded the matter to the administrative authority observing that the order of the Appellate Authority does not contain any reason whatsoever and is a mechanical affirmation without considering the appeal according to the statutory service rules. Learned State counsel further submits that since the remanded appeal has been elaborately adjudicated upon and the observation of this Court of being mechanical affirmation has been improved and furthermore since after elaborate discussions, perusal of the matter and evidence on record, a detailed judgment has been arrived at in the appeal, as such, no cause of action survives in favour of the petitioners. It has been also submitted by learned State counsel that the instant petitions are under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the scope of interference is minimal in nature. As such, these petitions being without

¶54

¶55

any merit are liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, learned State counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of V. Ramana

¶56

Vs. APSRT reported in 2005 (7) SCC 338.

¶57

7 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶58

8 . In WPS No.749/2011, original petitioner namely C.P. Singh left for heavenly abode and the petition has been preferred by his legal heirs.

¶59

9 . This Court while deciding the petition (WPS No.1657/2005) of petitioner Ashwai Sharma, wherein order dated 30.06.1995 passed by the Disciplinary authority in a Departmental Enquiry was challenged, made certain observation. For ready reference, the observation made in para 7, 8 and 9 are reproduced herein as under :-

¶60

“7. If the order passed by the Appellate Authority is scrutinized by applying aforesaid principle of law laid down keeping in view statutory requirement as to the manner of consideration of an appeal, it leads to inevitable conclusion that the order passed by the Appellate Authority does not contain any reason whatsoever and is a mechanical affirmation without considering the appeal according to the statutory service rules much less application of mind t the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the

¶61

¶62

Appellate Authority affirming the order passed in appeal is clearly unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

¶63

8. In view of the above finding, I don not propose to go into other aspects of the matter relating to validity of the order of punishment recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground raised by the petitioner in the petition as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶64

9. Relying upon the order of Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney (supra) this petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 20.01.1996 (Annexure A-2) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. Taking into consideration the fact that the order of punishment was imposed way back on 30.06.1995, it is further directed that the appeal shall be decided by the Authority as expeditiously as possible not later than 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶65

10. Learned State counsel stood to their stand that the Appellate Authority strictly followed the direction/observation of this Court made in WPS 1657/2005, and after hearing both the parties, passed the elaborate/reasoned order, which is under challenge in the aforesaid petitions.

¶66

11. The main objection/grievance of learned counsel for the

¶67

¶68

petitioners is that the Enquiry Officer in its report dated 30.04.1995 has only found the allegation to be partly proved against the petitioners but since the Disciplinary Authority did not find it sufficient to impose the desired punishment, the Enquiry Officer was asked to submit the second Enquiry Report and in view of that, the Enquiry Officer filed second report dated 19.05.1995 in the shape of additional finding and arrived at finding that the charges against the petitioners have been found to be fully proved.

¶69

12. It is pertinent to note here that, in this case, the Enquiry Officer itself has acted as a Presenting Officer by conducting cross-examination as also the examination-inchief, as such, the punishment of removal from service, which was the foundation of second report, is illegal and without jurisdiction and it further reflects that the petitioners have been awarded punishment for the act which was not the subject matter of the charges framed against them.

¶70

13. This Court has gone through the charges framed against the petitioners in Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.1995 (Annexure P/4 in WPS No.6893/2010, whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was proposed. The charges framed/levelled against the petitioners are reproduced herein as under :-

¶71

“canh jktdqekj dks dsUnzh; tsy jk;iqj ls ysdj fnukad 06-

¶72

¶73

04-94 dks [kSjkx< U;k;ky; esa is”kh djkus gsrq fnukad 5-4-94 dks izkr% 7-50 cts jokuxh fn;s tkus ds ckotwn fnukad 6-494 dks mDr canh dks dsUnzh; tsy jk;iqj ls izkIr djuk rFkk drZO; izek.k i= esa fnukad 5-4-94 dks gh canh dks tsy ls fudkyus ckcr >wBk rgjhj ys[k djuk ”

¶74

14. After submission of second enquiry report which was in the shape of additional finding, the Appellate Authority, recording its finding passed the impugned order dated 15.07.2010. For ready reference, relevant portion of the impugned order i.e. para 7 and 8, is reproduced herein as under :-

¶75

“ 7- vihykFkhZ iw.kZ #i ls nks’kh gSA

¶76

8&¼v½ vihykFkhZ;ksa dks fn;k x;k n.M muds }kjk dh xbZ =qfV ds vuq:i gSA

¶77

8&¼l½ xkMZ dekaMj ds lkFk =qfV esa “kkfey jguk mldk fojks/k oS/kkfud :i ls u djuk leku :i ls nks’kh fl} djrk gSA ftlds fy, ;s leku n.M ds ik= gSaA

¶78

8&¼n½ xkMZ dekaMj ds xyr fu.kZ; dk fojks/k u dj ekSu jguk vuq”kklu dh lhek esa jgus dk Ik;kZ; ugh gSaA vihykFkhZ leku :i ls nks’kh gSaA

¶79

8&¼b½ vihykFkhZ;ksa }kjk fd;s x;s vPNs dk;Z ds fy, mUgsa iqjLdkj fn;s x;s gSa ,ao muds }kjk dh xbZ xaHkhj =qfV ds fy, os mlh izdkj n.M ds ik= gSaA

¶80

8&¼Q½ @x@Hk@ bu dafMdkvksa esa vihykFkhZ;ksa }kjk viuh ikjhokfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,ao nkf;Roksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSaA mUgsa =qfV djrs le; bu lc dk ;ku j[kuk Fkk ,ao oS/ kkfud izfdz;k dk ikyu djuk Fkk tks muds }kjk ugh fd;k blds fy, os ftEesnkj gSaA

¶81

¶82

bl izdkj vfHkys[k ij vkbZ lk{; ds fo”ys’k.k ds i”pkr~ Li’V gS fd vihykFkhZx.k xkMZ dekaMj ds oS/k vkns”kksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, gh tokcnkj Fks u fd voS/kkfud ,ao =qfV iw.kZ dk;Zokgh esa lkFk nsus ds fy,A muds }kjk fdlh izdkj Hkh iz/kku vkj{kd dekaMj dh xyr dk;Zokgh dk fojks/k oS/kkfud rjhds ls ugh fd;k x;kA tcfd os jokuxh @ okilh ,ao eqfYte fudkyus ,ao nkf[kys ds le; muds lkFk Fks ,ao mUgsa bl ckr dk Kku Fkk fd tc os 05-04-1994 dks eqfYte ugha fudky jgs gSa rks mUgsa okil jf{kr dsUnz esa vken ntZ djkuh pkfg, ,ao iqu% jokuxh ysdj eqfYte fudkyuk Fkk tks muds }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA iqfyl v/kh{kd }kjk vkjksi dk dkSu lk va”k izekf.kr gS ,ao dkSu lk va”k vizekf.kr gS [kqyklk djk;k tkuk fu;ekuqdqy gSA vkbZ gqbZ lk{; ls vihykFkhZ;ksa ds fo:} vkjksi fu”kansg izekf.kr gSA ftlds fy;s iqfyl v/kh{kd }kjk vihykFkhZ;ksa dks ck/; lsok fuo`Rr fd;s tkus dk fn;k x;k n.M leqfpr gSA vr% vihykFkhZ;ksa }kjk izLrqr vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA ”

¶83

15. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that in 1^st Enquiry Report dated 30.04.95, both the petitioners were found partly guilty. Relevant portion of the report is extracted herein as under :-

¶84

“ bl izdkj vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku vkjksih deZpkfj;ksa ds izfrijh{k.k cpko lk{kh ds dFku o nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij vkjksih dzekad 1] iz/kku vkj{kd ijxfugknkl dqjsZ dzekad 1736] xkMZ bapktZ Fkk] ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksi izekf.kr gksuk ik;s x;s] vkjksih dzekad 2] vkj 0 cyjke ;kno dzekad 135] jf{kr dsUnz jk;iqj] vkjksih dzekad 3] vkj 0 lh 0 ih flga dzekad 118 jf{kr dsUnz jk;iqj o vkjksih dzekad 4] vkj 0

¶85

¶86

v”ouh “kekZ dza 1771 jf{kr dsUnz jk;iqj ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksi vkaf”kd :i ls izekf.kr gksuk ik;k x;kA ”

¶87

16. Thereafter, after one month, supplementary report was filed by the Enquiry Officer on 19.05.95 (Annexure P/3), and the petitioners were found guilty. It was reported by the Enquiry Officer as under :-

¶88

“tkap esa vfHk;kstu lk{kh;ksa ds dFku vkjksih deZpkjh ds izfrijh{k.k cpko lk{kh ds dFku o nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij vkjksih iz/kku vkj{kd ijxfugk nkl dqjsZ dzekad 1736 ,ao vkj{kd dzekad 135 cyjke ;kno vkjksih vkj{kd dzekad118 lh] ih flga vkjksih vkj{kd dzekad 1771 v”ouh “kekZ ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s x;sA”

¶89

17. A bare perusal of first Enquiry Report dated 30.04.95 clearly goes to show that all the entries in Rojnamcha Sanha and duty certificate was got prepared/done at the behest of Head Constable Parganiha Das Kurre, who was Guard Incharge at the relevant time and the petitioners were Constables who went with Head Constable Parganiha Das Kurre and prisoner and, therefore, Enquiry Officer found Head Constable Parganiha Das Kurre guilty and the petitioners were found partly guilty. Thereafter, not being satisfied with the first Enquiry Report, the respondent authorities called for 2^nd Enquiry Report, and according to which, the petitioners were found guilty. It is surprising to note here that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the

¶90

¶91

Department and all examination and cross-examination was done by the Enquiry Officer himself.

¶92

18. In catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this High Court in cases of like nature held that Enquiry Officer, who is in a position to judge, shall not act as Presenting Officer who is in the position of Prosecutor. It is also well settled principle of law that non appointment of Presenting Officer by itself is not vitiate the enquiry when Enquiry Officer merely acted only as an Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. In this case, it is clearly indicated that non appointing of Presenting Officer is not proper and Enquiry Officer has first presented report and after some time presented another report on same facts.

¶93

19. While dealing with the case where due to serious illegalities and irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice, the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of penalty and order passed in appeal are vitiated, this Court in Ghasiram (supra), held in para 13 as under :-

¶94

“13. Consequences of violation of provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966, in holding common proceeding have been considered in plethora of decisions and it is no longer res Integra. In the case of Mahesh Kumar Shrikishan Tiwari V. State of Madhya Pradesh 3, the issue with regard to requirement of passing

¶95

¶96

specific order, order as required under Rule 18 and its consequences came up for consideration. That was also a case relating to an official of the Police Department. While holding that the applicability of the Rules of 1966 is not altogether excluded, relying upon the judgment in the case of Premchandra Dhalpuria, Ex-Sub-Inspector, Police v. The State through the I.G. Police Bhopal 4, it was held that where the Police Regulations are silent; the provisions of the Rules of 1966 would apply in departmental enquiries against subordinate Police Staff. Relying upon the judgments in several cases on the point, it was held thus :-

¶97

“23. There is no express provision in the Police Regulations for common proceedings against delinquent servants. Rule 18 of the Control & Appeal Rules is in these terms :-

¶98

“Where two or more government servants are concerned in any case, the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.”

¶99

There is no such order by the Deputy Inspector General who is the competent authority. In the decision in Ashok Y. Naik V. The Administrator, Goa 1, it has been held that where there is no order by the competent authority for common proceedings, the entire proceeding is vitiated being without jurisdiction irrespective of the question of proof of prejudice which must be

¶100

¶101

implied. The decision in Tripura charan v. State of West Bengal2, is also pertinent. As it is clear that rule 18 of the Control & Appeal Rules has been violated, the Departmental Enquiry is vitiated. 24. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that in the instant case the impugned order is not ony in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice but is also violative of Rule 18 of the Control and Appeal Rules.”

¶102

20. In the case in hand, it is evident from all the documents on record that Departmental Enquiry was jointly conducted against four employees and similar punishment was passed against all of them but in first Enquiry Report the petitioners were found partly guilty.

¶103

21. This Court, in a writ petition bearing WPS No.1657/2005 preferred by petitioner [Ashwani Sharma in WPS No.6893/2010 herein], relying upon the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank V. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, reported in 2009 (4) SCC 240, directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners afresh in accordance with law but perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Appellate Authority did not consider all the legal points/aspects of the matter and arrived at only finding that “ muds }kjk fdlh izdkj Hkh iz/kku vkj{kd dekaMj dh xyr dk;Zokgh dks fojks/k

¶104

¶105

oS/kkfud rjhds ls ugha fd;k x;kA

¶106

22. It is also not disputed by the respondents that accused is senior employee as Head Constable, whereas the petitioners are junior to him as Constable. The constable is the lowest rank in the police department and especially in Police Department junior employees have to follow the direction of their superior in-fact they do not dare to opposed the direction of their superiors.

¶107

23. It transpires from the record that the Appellate Authority did not follow the direction of this Court passed in WPS No.1657/2005 in its letter and spirit and passed the impugned order.

¶108

24. This Court in Ghasiram (supra), held in para 20, which reads thus :-

¶109

“20. Almost similar circumstances exist in the present case also. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet which was issued in the year 1991, in which, penalty was imposed in the year 1992. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal and finally the petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1992. Thus, almost 19 years have elapsed since the date of initiation of enquiry. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be proper at this stage to remand the matter for de novo enquiry as the petitioner would be nearing his age of retirement, moreover, when the

¶110

¶111

petitioner is aged approximately 53 years when this petition is being now decided. Taking into consideration the nature of accusation against the petitioner and all relevant circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be met, if the matter is finally set at rest without any further enquiry and petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to arrears of pay or any other monetary benefits which he would have earned during the period he was out of employment. Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs.”

¶112

25. In this case also, the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in the year 1994 and after direction of this Court, the impugned order was passed in the year 2010 and, as such, 13 years have passed since then. The Legal Heirs of the Petitioner C.P. Singh has preferred the WPS No.749/2011 and petitioner Ashwani Sharma in WPS No. 6893/2010 who at the time of filing this petition was aged around 40 years and now he is aged approximately 53 years when these petitions are being now decided.

¶113

26. Thus, from all the above discussion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 15.07.2010 is set aside.

¶114

27. Taking into consideration the nature of accusation against

¶115

¶116

the petitioners and all relevant circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be met, if the matter is finally set at rest without any further enquiry and the petitioners are directed to be re-instated in service. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to arrears of pay or any other monetary benefits which they would have earned during the period when they were out of employment.

¶117

28. So far as petitioner late C.P. Singh in WPS No.749/2011 is concerned, the salary/pension of the petitioner C.P. Singh be calculated till he was alive and family pension be also calculated, in accordance with law.

¶118

Sd/-

¶119

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶120

pkd

Ashwani Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Sharma 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

Fatte Lal Choudhari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yogendra Singh Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Smt. Anusuiya Yadav Vs Rahul Yadav

Mohan Lal Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Padmini Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagbali Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh