Dr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1173 of 2013

Dr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal S/o Lt Ramnarayanb Agrawal Aged About 58 Years S/o Lt Ramnarayan Agrawal, Distt Programme Officer, Distt Aids Roktham And Niyantran Ikai, Durg,d Istt Durg, Cg Ps City Kotwali, Distt Durg, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through Secreary, Health And Pariwar Kalyan Vibhag Ministry, Mantralaya New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Project Director C.G. Rajya Aidas Niyantran Samiti, Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, Ps City Kotwali, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. Additional Project Director, Cg. Rajya Aidas Niyantran Samiti, Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, Ps City Kotwali, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P. L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

05.07.2024

¶15

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Project Director, Chhattisgarh State Aids Control Committee i.e. respondent No. 2 wherein the order of recovery of Rs. 5,16,390/- was passed against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was getting the benefit of NPA (Non-Practicing Allowance) at the same time he was pursuing his private practice as a Doctor.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though an inquiry was conducted which is evident from the inquiry report dated 26.02.2012 given by the Deputy Director, Chhattisgarh State Aids Control Committee; no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner

¶17

2

¶18

was not pursuing private practice; therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 2 is erroneous and liable to be quashed.

¶19

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. She submitted that after the conclusion of the inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.01.2013 which was duly replied to by the petitioner on 07.01.2013. She further submitted that while filing the reply, the petitioner could not produce sufficient documents to demonstrate that he was not engaged in private practice. Thus, she stated that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

5. Admittedly, the petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding the post of Medical Officer and was sent on deputation to the Chhattisgarh State Aids Control Committee and was posted as District Program Officer, Durg. On the basis of a complaint, an inquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3 in which it was found that the petitioner was getting the benefit of NPA (Non-Practicing Allowance) and at the same time, he was pursuing private practice and certificates were also issued by him. A report dated 26.02.2012 was submitted before respondent No. 2. A show-cause notice was issued on 02.01.2013 to the petitioner which was replied to on 07.01.2013. Respondent No. 2 passed the order of recovery of Rs. 5,16,390/- on 28.08.2013. From a perusal of the inquiry report and show-cause notice, it is apparent that the inquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without affording him the opportunity of hearing and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him.

¶22

6. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the order dated 28.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the authority concerned is directed to

¶23

3

¶24

inquire into the matter afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶25

7. Since the inquiry was conducted in the year 2012 and the order impugned was passed in the year 2013, the authorities are directed to conclude the entire proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of .

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶29

Ajinkya

Dr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gannu Ram Nag Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chitra Sen Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kusum Dhiwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Swati Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhobi Das Ratre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

(Deleted) Praveen Kumar Philip (Died) Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.