Allowed

Chandrashekhar Sahu v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2024WPS/2910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Junior Engineer of Municipal Council Manendragarh was penalised with stoppage of one increment for re-floating a tender without approval, then served a fresh charge sheet on the same allegations and ordered to recover Rs. 5.50 lacs within three days. The High Court quashed the recovery order, holding that double punishment for one cause of action and denial of hearing made it unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.06.2013 imposing recovery of Rs. 5.50 lacs quashed.

Chandrashekhar Sahu Vs State Of C.g. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 2910 of 2013

¶5

Chandrashekhar Sahu son of Shri R. S. Sahu, aged about 42 years, resident of Plot No. 329/16, Chadda Badi, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Police Station-Civil Line, Civil & Reveue District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur (C.G.).

¶9

Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, through the Secretary, Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

The Deputy Director, Directorate Urban Admiistration and Development Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

The Joint Director, Directorate Urban Administration and Developme3nt Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶12

Municipal Council Manendragarh, through the Chief Municipal Officer, District- Koriya (C.G.).

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1, 3 &4/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Res. No. 2 : Mr. Ram Krishna Kashyap, Advocate For Res. No. 5 : Mr. Priya Mishra, Advocate

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

13.06.2024

¶18

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶19

following prayer(s):-

¶20

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 18.06.2013 & 21.06.2013(Annexure P/1), with all consequential orders and actions.

¶21

10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶22

¶23

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the post of Junior Engineer at Municipal Corporation, Manendragarh. A tender was floated by the department for the construction of a retaining wall at Kharsia River on 30.10.2007. Earlier, despite awarding the contract to the successful bidder, the said contract could not be executed as the bidder refused to accept the work, therefore, after getting approval from the higher authorities/ Department, again tenders were invited by the petitioner for the same work on 03.06.2008. A resolution was also passed by the Municipal Council in this regard on 18.02.2008. After that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for such negligent act, which was duly replied to by the petitioner. The Municipal Council imposed a penalty of withholding one increment of the petitioner with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 19.11.2010. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 19.11.2010, thereafter, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by the Joint Director on 18.06.2013 and on 21.06.2013 the order impugned was passed about recovery of Rs. 5.50 lacs against the petitioner by way of deducting it from his salary.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was an allegation against the petitioner with regard to inviting fresh tender and punishment was inflicted against him vide order dated 19.11.2010 thereby the respondents withheld one increment with non-cumulative effect. He would further submit that in the same set of facts and allegations, a fresh article of charges was issued against the petitioner on 18.06.2013 and on 21.06.2013; an order of recovery of Rs. 5.50 lacs was passed against him. He would also submit that the petitioner was panelized twice for one cause of action. He would further argue that no enquiry was conducted and within a period of three days, the order of recovery was passed by the concerned authority on 21.06.2013, therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶25

¶26

4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose and submit that the petitioner had floated a second tender without obtaining the approval of the higher authorities. It is also argued that the facts of both the alleged acts are altogether different and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶28

6. The punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 19.11.2010 by the Municipal Council, Manendragarh. The said order attained finality, as it was not challenged by the petitioner before any forum, thereafter, the Municipal Council served the article of charges to the petitioner for the same negligent act and a penalty of recovery of Rs. 5.50 lacs has been inflicted upon the petitioner without affording him any opportunity of hearing.

¶29

7. Taking into consideration the fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted and earlier, the petitioner was penalized for the same cause of action, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by respondent No. 3 on 21.06.2013 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed.

¶30

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶33

Judge

¶34

amita

Chandrashekhar Sahu v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Sahu v. State Of C.g. 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

Sohan Lal and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ishwari Prasad Shyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Satish Kumar Dubey Vs State Bank Of India

Shri Laxman Prasad Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

T.p. Pandey Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.