Allowed

Nagendra Singh Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Oct 2024WPC/1068/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an Award by the Lok Pal recommending disciplinary action and a recovery order by the Collector. The Court held the Ombudsman erred in impugning the petitioner for missing registers he did not maintain and set aside the disciplinary recommendation and the improper recovery order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order for disciplinary action set aside. Recovery Letter Annexure P-2 and part of Annexure P-3 set aside.

Nagendra Singh Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 8

2024:CGHC:40268

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1068 of 2015

¶6

Nagendra Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Ram Nath Singh Aged About 55 Years Working As Assistant Director Horticulture, Janjgir, Post Office- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh,

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

2 - The Collector & Programme Coordinator (MANREGA), Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kanker, Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Lokpal Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme), Room No. 21, First Floor, Zila Panchayat Campus, Dist. Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - The Directorate Of Horticulture And Farm Forestry, Through- Its Director,

¶15

2 / 8

¶16

Office Of The H.O.D., 2nd Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶19

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board

¶20

14/10/2024

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

“ i) That the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the Petitioner from the Respondents No. 2, 4 and 5.

¶23

ii) That the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or of any other appropriate nature quashing the impugned Award dated 30.01.2014 (Ann. P-1), passed by the respondent No. 4 and/or directions to expunge the adverse comments made against the petitioner in the impugned Award dated 30.01.2014 (Ann. P-1), passed by the respondent No. 4 may kindly be issued, in the ends of justice.

¶24

(iii) The Hon'ble High Court, may most kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs, directions or orders in the nature of certiorari or of any other appropriate nature to quash the Letter/Order dated 30.03.2015 (Ann. P-2) issued by the respondent No 2, in which a liability of Rs. 1,53,000/- is fixed and a fine of Rs 1,000/ is imposed upon the petitioner and also the Letter/Order dated 12.05.2015 (Ann P-3) issued by the respondent No 5 asking the petitioner to deposit the said amount of Rs. 1,53,000/- and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in the

¶25

3 / 8

¶26

ends of justice.

¶27

(iv) That, it is prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly grant any other relief or/and alternative relief to the petitioner which is deemed proper, just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance raised in this writ petition is primarily on the ground that Ombudsman/respondent No.4 has made recommendation in impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 30.01.2014 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and also to the Annexure P-2 and part of Annexure P-3 of recovery of Rs.1,53,000/and penalty of Rs.1000/-. He was not posted as Assistant Director, Horticulture, Kanker for the period in which alleged irregularity is said to have been committed and found. During that period, petitioner was posted as Assistant Director, Horticulture. Janjgir. He was transferred to office of Assistant Director, Horticulture, Kanker on administrative ground vide order dated 31.07.2012. However, the petitioner was not relieved immediately after issuance of transfer order, as it is evident from the letter written by the Mission Director, State Horticulture Mission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, on 22.08.2012 mentioning that if the petitioner along with other transferred employees are relieved, project which was ongoing will be adversely affected. As per his instructions, petitioner joined the transferred place only on 5^th / 6^th September 2012. Irregularities committed in plantation of Mango plants and Guava plants was of the year 2010-2011.

¶29

Based on news published in newspapers, proceedings were initiated by Ombudsman, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment

¶30

4 / 8

¶31

Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), District Kanker and case was registered on 18.01.2013. After receipt of notice petitioner handed over all the relevant documents as available in the office. After conclusion of enquiry proceedings, Ombudsman has made recommendation for recovery of the amount from the then Assistant Director Horticulture Mr. K.K. Mishra, Rural Horticulture Extension Officer Mr. R.B.S. Baghel as also one Gardner Mr. Purshottam Jain in the ratio as prescribed therein. Petitioner was not held liable for committing irregularity in plantation project and therefore no order was passed against him for recovery of amount. It is contention that in the impugned order, the Ombudsman has further recommended for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, making an observation that the petitioner could not able to provide relevant documents immediately even after making several requests. Such recommendation is contrary to contents of other paragraphs of impugned order wherein the Ombudsman has specifically recorded that Stock Register, MB cash book, Pass-book, Employment Register as also Goods Register have not been maintained. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforementioned registers have not been maintained by the earlier Officer posted as Assistant Director, Horticulture. There is no error on the part of petitioner in not producing the same. He also contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to withhold the records as sought for by Ombudsman as allegation of committing irregularity in the plantation project is against some other persons who were posted earlier to petitioner and the alleged work was stated to have been done about two years prior to posting of petitioner at Kanker . Petitioner stood retired after

¶32

5 / 8

¶33

attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2021 as Assistant Director Horticulture. As per his instructions, petitioner is suffering from Parkinson disease. Copy of medical prescription is placed on record along with covering memo. He also contended that respondent- State, when issued letter Annexure P-2 and Annexure P- 3 for recovery of the amount from petitioner also, contrary to the order passed by the Ombudsman, this Court vide order dated 30.06.2015 stayed the impugned orders. No proceedings or the inquiry has been initiated against him.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the Ombudsman after issuing show cause notice has passed the order. Petitioner was granted opportunity to submit reply and defend the show cause notice. Hence, the order of Ombudsman does not call for any interference. He contended that pursuant to order passed by the Ombudsman, Collector has issued show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner liability of the loss between the outgoing Assistant Director and petitioner/present Assistant Director Horticulture was fixed. Hence, writ petition is bereft of merits.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents available on record.

¶36

Perusal of the document Annexure P-1 would show that the Ombudsman in its order took note of the news published in Bastar Times during 15.01.2013 till 22.01.2013 of corruption in execution of work of plantation under the Rojgar Guarantee Scheme at Village Panchayat Hatkongera and Village Panchayat- Bagodar by the

¶37

6 / 8

¶38

Horticulture Department, Kanker in the year 2010-11. Order Annexure P-4 would show that it is dated 31.07.2012 whereby the petitioner was transferred from the office of Assistant Director Horticulture Janjgir to the office of Assistant Director Kanker on administrative ground and further Annexure P-5 letter dated 22.08.2012 would suggest that the Mission Director, State Horticulture Mission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur requested not to relieve the transferred employees pursuant to order of transfer dated 31.07.2012, from which it is apparent that till August 2012 petitioner remain posted in the office of Assistant Director Horticulture Janjgir. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner joined transferred place only on 5-6^th September 2012.

¶39

From the aforementioned facts it is appearing that petitioner joined in the office of Assistant Director, Horticulture, Kanker i.e. transferred place only in the month of September 2012. However, the corruption as stated to have been committed is of the year 2010-11. Respondent No. 4 in its order held liable three persons who have caused loss to the public exchequer, i.e. the then Assistant Director Horticulture Mr. K.K. Mishra, Rural Horticulture Extension Officer R.B.S. Baghel and one Gardener Purshottam Jain. Petitioner was not held liable for causing loss to public exchequer by respondent No.4 (Ombudsman) in its order Annexure P-1. However in the order Annexure P-1, only recommendation is made against the petitioner of taking strict disciplinary action for the reason that the petitioner has not provided relevant records. Perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-1 would show that Ombudsman in its order further recorded that the Goods Register, Stock Register, MB cash-book , Pass-book and Employment

¶40

7 / 8

¶41

Register are not produced and further recorded the finding that from aforementioned fact it is proved that many registers were not prepared. When respondent No.4 has recorded finding that relevant documents i.e. registers were not maintained by the then Assistant Director, Horticulture, in the opinion of this Court, respondent No.4 erred in holding that petitioner is responsible for not producing the documents/Registers for its perusal. Once respondent No.4 has recorded a finding that relevant registers are not being maintained by earlier officer, the petitioner could not be held responsible for not producing documents.

¶42

Upon receipt of the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.4 it appears that respondent No.2/ Collector has issued show cause notice to petitioner to which he replied and the Collector/respondent No.2 after receiving reply, issued letter Annexure P-2 observing that they failed to prove that - 80-100 percent plants are live by which the purpose and object of the project is fulfilled; they further failed to prove that they have not taken consent of all the agriculturists to plant Guava plants along with Mango pants also and have not sought prior approval from the competent authority in this regard. It is also observed that proper irrigation facilities have not been provided to make the plantation project successful and based on aforementioned observation it is concluded that part of recovery be made from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,53,000/- with penalty of Rs.1000/-.

¶43

Letter Annexure P-2, does not specifically mention that as to how the petitioner is guilty for inflicting fine of Rs.1,000/- and further in what manner petitioner is liable for the recovery of loses caused to public

¶44

8 / 8

¶45

exchequer. The Collector has initiated proceedings on the basis of recommendation made by Ombudsman. When Ombudsman had not held the petitioner responsible for causing loss in any manner, respondent No.2 erred in issuing letter for recovery of amount vide Annexure P-2 which is beyond the recommendation made by respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 has not initiated any proceedings of taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, in accordance with the rule applicable to the petitioner in this regard.

¶46

For the foregoing discussions, writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-1 so far as it relates to the recommendation by respondent No.4 for taking strict disciplinary action against the petitioner is set aside. Letter of recovery Annexure P-2 with respect to petitioner and part of Annexure P-3 with respect to recovery of Rs.1,54,000/- in Case No.47 of Ombudsman are also set aside.

¶47

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

Praveen

Nagendra Singh Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Singh Patel 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

Doman Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nandani Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Jay Ambey Rice Mill Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Angesh Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokdhar Nagwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh