Allowed

Khushi Ram Sandilya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2024WPS/860/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a dispute over back wages following the reinstatement of a deceased employee whose removal for 15 days unauthorized absence was initially set aside as disproportionate. The court set aside the 'no work no pay' deduction, directing the State to pay accumulated back wages.

What did the court decide?

The order disallowing back wages is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay back wages to the legal heirs within three months.

Khushi Ram Sandilya Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:CGHC:29155

¶3

Digitally
signed by
GOURI
GOURI MUDALIAR
MUDALIAR Date:
2024.08.08
10:36:51
+0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WPS No. 860 of 2016

¶7

Khushi Ram Sandilya (dead) through LRs

¶8

1.1 - Savitri Sande W/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

1.2 - Kapil Kumar Sande S/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶10

1.3 - Usha Sande D/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

1.4 - Ranu Kumar Sande D/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶12

1.5 - Neha Kumari Sande D/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶13

1.6 - Marshal Sande S/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶14

1.7 - Itihas Sande S/o Late Khushi Ram, Aged About 24 Years R/o VillageThakurdiya, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶15

... Petitioners

¶16

versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶18

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶19

Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,

¶20

Superintendent Of Police Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh,

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Petitioners : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL.

¶23

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board

¶25

05/08/2024

¶26

Heard.

¶27

Instant petition is now being prosecuted by the legal heirs of the original petitioner Khushi Ram Sandilya who died on 7/11/2021. The original petitioner was posted as a Treasury Guard at Janjgir-Champa. Because of his unauthorized absent, he was removed from the service on 31/01/2006. This was subject of challenge in writ petition bearing number 338/2010 wherein this court on 8/12/2015 passed the order by holding that the unauthorized absence for 15 days was shockingly disproportionate and accordingly set aside the same and remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority. The relevant part of the order para 14 and 15 are reproduced

¶28

hereunder:-

¶29

“14. Applying the law laid-down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, I find that penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence for 15 days is shockingly high and disproportionate to the misconduct of the guilty which he is held to have committed in discharge of his official duty and therefore, matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police. JanjgirChampa to consider the question of punishment afresh in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in above stated judgments and to pass appropriate order keeping in mind the punishment has to be reasonable and in consonance with the misconduct of the delinquent. 15. As a fail out and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, order dated 11.09.2006 (Annexure P-2) affirming the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa dated 31.01.2006 by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur and order dated 23.07.2008 dismissing mercy appeal by the Director General of Police, Raipur are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa for consideration afresh. The Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa shall pass the order within 45 days from the

¶30

¶31

date of production/communication of certified copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).”

¶32

Perusal of the order would show that after initial dismissal on 31/01/2006 by the Superintendent of Police, departmental internal appeal was filed which was dismissed on 11/09/2006 by the Inspector General of Police and subsequently the Director General of Police by an order dated 23/07/2008 dismissed the mercy petition whereby the dismissal order was affirmed. Further perusal of the order, therefore, would show that the petitioner was prosecuting his grievance initially before the department and thereafter before the High Court wherein the aforesaid orders were passed.

¶33

Subsequent to the direction passed by the High Court the reinstatement order was passed by Annexure P-3. However, in respect of back wages it was silent and fresh departmental enquiry was conducted. The departmental enquiry was concluded thereafter on 26/12/2015 and though he was reinstated and his salary was reduced to minimum pay scale for one year and the back wages were not granted on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder :

¶34

‘ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; NRrhlx<+ fcykliqj }kjk ikfjr vkns’k esa vkj{kd ds fo:) vknsf’kr foHkkxh; tkap esa lsok ls iFkd fd;s tkus laca/kh iwoZ vafre vkns’k dks fjjLr fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i dk;kZy;hu vkns’k Ø- iqv@tkapka@LFkk@752@15 fnukad 18-12-15 ds }kjk iqu% lsok esa cgky fd;k x;k ,oa foHkkxh; tkap esa izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, ,d व्ቧ� ds fy, U;wure osrueku esa yk;s tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA foHkkxh; tkap esa xSjgkftjh vof/k fnukad 19-01-05 ls 02-02-05 rd dk fujkdj.k iwoZor~ gh j[kk tkrk gSA vkj{kd dks iqu% lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus ij vkj{kd fnukad 23-12-15 dks jf{kr dasnz esa vken fn;s tkus ds QyLo:i vkj{kd dh lsok ls iFkd vof/k fnukad 31-01-06 ls fnukad 22-12-15 rd dks dk;Z ugha osru ugha ds rgr~ fujkd`r fd;k tkrk gSA’.

¶35

Being aggrieved by such order, the instant petition.

¶36

The submission is made that till the principle of imposing the punishment which is shockingly disproportionate still continues and for only 15 days absence the petitioner has already been imposed with a punishment of reducing the pay scale to the minimum for one year and not granting the back wages is a double jeopardy, therefore still the principle which was laid

¶37

¶38

down by the High Court in the earlier litigation the same continued. Reliance is also placed in a judgment passed by this court in Writ Petition (S) No.1691/2011 on 13/01/2016 in between Vinod Kumar Kori Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors. wherein this court while condoning the absence of three months reinstated the employee with back wages. Therefore, it is submitted that the back wages should also be granted to the legal heirs.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the punishment by the disciplinary authority is commensurate to the misconduct committed and the past track record of the petitioner would also show that he was punished for absence in the duty. It is further submitted that after the order of the High Court his case was sympathetically considered and fresh order of punishment has been passed. She would submit that this court will not sit as an appellate court over the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

In a earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition (S) No.338/2010 this court by an order dated 8/12/2015 has set aside the removal and remitted back the case primarily on the principle that it was shockingly disproportionate to dismiss the petitioner from service for the reason that the petitioner was only found absent for 15 days and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. After the case was remitted back again a fresh order was passed though reinstatement was made by an order dated 18^th December, 2015 but it followed with the departmental enquiry. Subsequently, the documents would show that departmental enquiry was carried out and the orders were passed which have been reproduced herein before. The comparative evaluation of the judgment and the order passed subsequent to it, it appears that still the issue of proportionality continued and it appears that the judgment which was passed by this court which set out the boundaries were again over reached. It is trite that the spirit of the order to be looked into and when the High Court in its order specifically observed that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate and ambition expressed. However, again

¶42

¶43

imposing a punishment with a twin punishment of reducing of minimum pay scale coupled with the principles of ‘no work no pay’ would bring back the crisis to make the earlier observation completely porous.

¶44

The Supreme Court has categorically time and again has observed that the High Court would not sit as an appellate authority but if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and shocks the conscience of the court, then in such case, the court can step in and cannot turn blind eye. The original petitioner who subsequently breathed his last and now represented by the legal heirs would show that for absence of 15 days he was removed from the service and having underwent a litigation, when the order of reinstatement was passed the head wind continued to resist to have domino effect. Even reading of the punishment order would show that when the punishment order itself was set aside then in such case it was not because of the fault of the petitioner but he was restrained to work for the reason that his services were terminated which was subsequently was set aside by the order of the High court. As of now it appears that even the subsequent order do not stand the conscience of the court and since the petitioner was already punished with a reduction of pay scale for one year, further withholding of the back wages on ‘no work no pay’ would be a twin punishment and cannot be sustained. Accordingly that part of the order of not grant of back wages is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the back wages which accumulated to the deceased petitioner/legal heirs as of now within a period of three months.

¶45

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶48

gouri

Khushi Ram Sandilya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushi Ram Sandilya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Mailprakash Toppo Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Munna Lal Tandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shivram Masram Vs Union Of India

Chhattisgarh Metal and Engineering Works Union Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) Vs M/S Bhilai Engineering Corporation Limited

Suresh Kumar Tandon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh