Pila Babu Nagvanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:31381

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1341 of 2014

¶6

Heera Lal Sahu (Died) Through Legal Heir As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 24-09-2021

¶7

1.1 - Krishan Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Badedevgaon, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

1.2 - Digeshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Badedevgaon, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶9

1.3 - Kameshwar Sahu S/o Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Badedevgaon, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Thana Naya Raipur, Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

The Collector, Collectorate Raigarh District Raigarh C.G.

¶14

The Sub Divisional Officer Sub Division Raigarh, Thana Raigarh Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

And

¶17

WPS No. 1342 of 2014

¶18

Pila Babu Nagvanshi S/o Jhirku Ram Nagvanshi Aged About 39 Years R/o Chote Dumar Pali, Thana Kharsia, Tha Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶19

---- Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Thana Naya Raipur, Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶22

The Collector, Collectorate Raigarh District Raigarh C.G.

¶23

2

¶24

The Sub Divisional Officer Sub Divisional Raigarh Distt. Raigarh C.G. ---- Respondents

¶25

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶26

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶28

2 0.08.2024

¶29

Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together and finally disposed of by this common order.

¶30

The petitioners have filed these petitions against the impugned order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda, District Raigarh, wherein, both the petitioners have been terminated from their services.

¶31

In both petitions, the petitioners were posted on the post of Patwari at Patwari Circle No. 15, Batura Kachar, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, and have been removed from services pursuant to the order dated 23.01.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda, District Raigarh. The allegations against the petitioners were that they issued survey numbers for registration of sale-deed and were fully aware that the lands in question were government lands. The records were called, and the Order-sheet dated 22.05.2012 would show that summons were issued to the petitioners to participate in the departmental enquiry which was approved by the disciplinary authority on 22.05.2012 itself. Thereafter, on 25.06.2013 after more than one year, the enquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority, and thereafter, punishment was imposed. Further, no proceeding took place between 22.05.2012 to 25.06.2013.

¶32

3

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though on 22.05.2012, a decision was taken to communicate the petitioners to participate in the departmental enquiry, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the enquiry report was submitted on 25.06.2013, and thereafter the punishment was imposed and thus, the principle of natural justice was not complied with.

¶34

On the other hand, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He submitted that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, but they did not participate in the departmental enquiry, and therefore, the disciplinary authority was left with no other option except to submit enquiry reports. He further submitted that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority were appealable before the Collector, but the petitioners have directly approached this Court.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents along with the records.

¶36

The records would show that after the issuance of the article of charges, the petitioners moved applications to supply the necessary documents, and those applications were rejected. The petitioners failed to challenge the order whereby their applications were rejected vide order dated 22.05.2012. The petitioners were directed to appear before the disciplinary authority regularly, and it was also ordered to communicate in this regard to the petitioners, but thereafter, the case was listed before the disciplinary authority on 25.06.2013 and on that date, the enquiry reports were submitted.

¶37

The procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority would show that sufficient opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioners and

¶38

4

¶39

the final order was passed on 23.01.2014.

¶40

There is a lacuna in the departmental proceeding; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 23.01.2014 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to take a decision afresh. The Enquiry officer is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage the enquiry stood vitiated i.e. from stage of 22.05.2012.

¶41

10. It is also directed that the disciplinary authority shall make all endeavors to conclude the departmental proceedings preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

11. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these petitions are disposed of .

¶43

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

$iddhant

Pila Babu Nagvanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pila Babu Nagvanshi 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

Arvind Kerketta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Singh Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sel Singh Netam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lata Bai Sahu Vs Ramlal Sahu

Smt.savita Mishra Vs The State Of Government Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Himanshu Singh Rana Vs State Of Chhattisgarh