Allowed

Padamdhar Prasad Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Sept 2024WPS/3774/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a show cause notice issued by the District Collector seeking to impose removal from service. Relying on a suo motu order establishing the Collector lacks power to inflict major penalties, the Court held the notice issued after the petitioner's retirement was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice dated 05/11/2013 issued by the Collector, Korea, with intent to impose major punishment was quashed.

Padamdhar Prasad Pandey Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2024:CGHC:34525

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3774 of 2013

¶7

Padamdhar Prasad Pandey, S/o Late Shri Indrapal Prasad Pandey, Aged About 55 Years R/o In front of Hotel Awas, Main Road, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Director Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Premises, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Director Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Premises, Raipur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Collector Distt. Korea, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Deputy Director Department of Panchayat, Distt. Korea, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate

¶15

For State

¶16

: Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

05/09/2024

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case related with issuance of show cause notice dated 05/11/2013 1700/Sth. /Uss/Vijja./2013 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure P-1) from the respondents and

¶21

10.2. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶22

2 / 5

¶23

set aside and quash the show cause notice dated 05/11/2013 1700/Sth. /Uss/Vijja. /2013 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure P-1) by issuance of writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions, order/orders.

¶24

10.3. Any other relief/ relief's which honourable court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ”

¶25

Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wages Employee in the Office of Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Department in the year 1980. His services were regularized on 08.01.1997. He further submitted that against the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was initiated on an allegation that he did not have the requisite qualification i.e. Class-5th and a forged Transfer Certificate was submitted by him. An Article of charge was issued on 01.05.2008. The petitioner filed a reply to the same. The enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed and thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted before the Collector, Korea, who found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and thereafter punishment of removal from services was passed by the Collector. He contended that on 09.08.2010, the services of the petitioner were terminated and the same was challenged by filing a writ petition (WPS No.4583/2010) on the ground that according to Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, “the Rules of 1966”), the District Collector is not a disciplinary authority, but the actual disciplinary authority is Deputy Director, Panchayat, and the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was reinstated in the services with 50% back wages vide order dated 06.08.2013.

¶26

3 / 5

¶27

Mr. Baghel argued that the Collector, Korea, Baikunthpur on the basis of earlier disciplinary enquiry, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 05.11.2013 with the intention to impose a major penalty of removal from service on the basis of a letter dated 26.10.2013 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. He further argued that if the power is not conferred with the Collector to impose a major penalty, such power cannot be exercised by such authority. He lastly argued that the show cause notice issued by the Collector, Korea is contemptuous as it has already been held by the Co-Ordinate Bench that the Collector has no authority of law to impose major punishment.

¶28

He stated that a letter dated 26.10.2013 was issued by the Director, Social Welfare and it is not a circular which delegates power to the Collector to exercise power of disciplinary authority. He prayed that the impugned show cause notice dated 15.11.2013 is liable to be quashed. He informed that the petitioner had already retired from services on 14.10.2019.

¶29

On the other hand, Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, the learned State counsel submitted that the Collector is the appointing authority and may act as a disciplinary authority of Class-III & Class-IV employees as per Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, therefore, the Collector has the authority to impose major punishment. She further submitted that when this issue was raised before the Director, Social Welfare it was clarified that the Collector is the appointing authority of Class-IV employees. She thus submitted that the impugned notice was within the four corners of the applicable rules, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶31

4 / 5

¶32

documents available on the record.

¶33

Earlier, an article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 01.05.2008, and vide order dated 13.08.2008 punishment of removal from services was inflicted by the Collector, Korea, against which, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.08.2013, wherein, it has been held that the major penalty can not be imposed by the Collector. In paras- 11 & 12, the CoOrdinate Bench of this Court held as under:-

¶34

“11. I, however, find that by virtue of delegation as disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalty, the Collector is one of the disciplinary authorities. Therefore, his order, appointing enquiry officer and presenting officer, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and authority of law. This power could have been exercised by the Collector by virtue of being a disciplinary authority under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1966. However, major penalty could not be imposed by the Collector.

¶35

12. In the result, the impugned order is declared illegal and without competence and set aside. It would however be open for the competent authority to take action in accordance with jaw. The petitioner. is directed to be reinstated in service in accordance with law. If the competent authority does not take any steps towards disciplinary action of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages. ”

¶36

The matter was referred to the Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, where it was observed that the appointing authority for Class-IV employees is the Collector, and therefore, punishment can be imposed by such authority. In the Rules, 1966, there is a Schedule, which describes appointing authority. The Collector may be the appointing authority of Class IV employees but disciplinary authority as per Rules is the Joint Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, therefore, such

¶37

5 / 5

¶38

power cannot be exercised by the Collector.

¶39

In the present case, the Collector, Korea issued a show cause notice on 05.11.2013 to the petitioner with the intent to impose a major punishment. Earlier also, an order of removal from service was passed by the Collector, and the same was set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 06.08.2013 on the ground that the Collector has no authority to impose a major penalty. Therefore, the show cause notice issued by the Collector with the intent to impose a major punishment is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

¶40

10.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the show cause notice

¶41

dated 05.11.2013, issued by the Collector, Korea is hereby quashed .

¶42

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Nadim

Padamdhar Prasad Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padamdhar Prasad Pandey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bashishtha Lal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shiv Mangal Singh Kushwaha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kiran Kerketta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dalbir Das Mahant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. D. D. Prushti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. D. Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh