Lalram Kori Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12947

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SATISH TUMANE

¶6

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE

¶7

WPS No.1358 of 2017

¶8

1 - Lalram Kori S/o Late Shri Manore Kori, Aged About 56 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Rural Agriculture Development Officer, Head Quarter Ghudsena, Thana Nawagarh Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattigarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary Department Of Agriculture Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Director, Department Of Agriculture Directorate Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Deputy Director, Agriculture Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board

¶17

18.03.2025

¶18

By virtue of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs at para 10 as under :-

¶19

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 25/01/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2.

¶20

2

¶21

10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”

¶22

It appears from perusal of the record that the petitioner, who was employed as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer at Block-Nawagarh, had committed gross irregularities under the scheme known as “Vristhi Chhaya Yojna Antargat”, as he failed to forward the relevant papers of one farmer Hitendra Banjare, owing to which, the tubewell could not be sanctioned by the State Government to the said farmer. It appears further that in view of the irregularities committed by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg, vide order dated 28/08/2009 (Annexure R/1) and thereafter, within a period of 45 days, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 07/10/2009, in which, the answer was sought from him. It appears further that the charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 15/10/2009 and, in response to which, he has submitted his reply/defence on 22/10/2009 (Annexure R/3).

¶23

It appears further that the Deputy Director, Agriculture, who was the disciplinary authority, has afforded the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 19/11/2009, and thereafter also, on 24/11/2009 and, on perusal of the reply, as was submitted by the petitioner along with the statement, the same was found to be contradictory and thereupon a departmental enquiry was constituted, where, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 16/12/2009 vide Annexure R/4. It is to be seen further that in the alleged departmental enquiry, proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and after due consideration of the said enquiry, the

¶24

3

¶25

enquiry report dated 23/06/2010 (Annexure R/5) was presented, where the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved and, an intimation along with the alleged inquiry report was supplied to him with a direction that if the petitioner was desirous of submitting any response/representation in relation to the conclusion arrived at in the departmental enquiry, the same should be furnished within a period of seven days and furthermore, if he wanted an opportunity of personal hearing, then also, an intimation to that effect be conveyed.

¶26

It appears further that, in response to which, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 13/01/2011 (Annexure R/8) and also requested for the personal hearing and after considering his said prayer, the same was afforded to him and was also heard in person on 26/02/2011. It appears further that after considering the reply, as was submitted by the petitioner, an order was passed on 23/06/2010 (Annexure R/9), in which, the defence taken-up by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and thereafter, the final show-cause notices were issued on 10/08/2010 (Annexure R/6) and 05/01/2011 (Annexure R/7) and, in response to it, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 17/01/2011 (Annexure R/8) and, after due consideration of his reply, an order dated 07/06/2011 (Annexure P/2) was passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg and the same was affirmed further by the respondent No.2–The Director, Department of Agriculture, Directorate, Raipur, vide its order impugned dated 25/01/2017 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal preferred by him, was dismissed.

¶27

4

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that by considering further that after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order impugned dated 25/01/2017 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the respondent No.2The Director, Department of Agriculture, Directorate, Raipur, affirming the order dated 07/06/2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.3 -Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg, I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere the same. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

No order as to cost(s).

¶30

SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶31

Tumane

Lalram Kori v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalram Kori v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunita Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Murti Shukla Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Dudhawa Bandh Ka Prabhavit Kishan Majdoor Kalyan Samiti, Aamgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Maksudan Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jeetu Ram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shyamlal Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited