Ram Avtar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Tribes And Scheduled Castes Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Commissioner Scheduled Tribes And Scheduled Castes Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶13

Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶14

5. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

16.06.2026

¶19

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction/ order commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 23-01-2020 (Annexure P-01) & order dated 23-04-2021 (Annexure P-02).

¶21

10.2 Any other relief(s), which may deems fit,

¶22

2

¶23

looking to the facts & circumstances of the case may be given to the Petitioner. ”

¶24

Facts in brief are that initially the petitioner was appointed as daily-wage employee under the respondents on 15.07.1994. He was appointed as contingency paid employee vide order dated 09.09.2008, and subsequently, his services were regularized vide order dated 16.02.2009. The petitioner moved an application on 31.01.2018 for correction of date of his initial appointment in the service record, and thereafter, show-cause notice was issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner on 16.10.2019 contemplating a departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed reply and denied the contents. The disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increment with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 23.01.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and it has been dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2021. The petitioner has challenged both the above-stated orders.

¶25

Ms. Meena Shastri would vehemently argue that the disciplinary authority inflicted minor penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect without holding enquiry in contravention to the Rule – 16 of the C.G. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1966”). She would pray to quash both the orders.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. Ojha, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner manipulated the service book, therefore, show-cause notice was issued and it was duly replied by the petitioner, and thereafter, enquiry committee was constituted in the chairmanship of Superintendent Shri M.L. Banjare, Post Metric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Bemetra. He would submit that the said committee submitted its report on 04.10.2019, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority

¶27

3

¶28

inflicted penalty. He would submit that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and rules were followed, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Rule – 16 of the Rules, 1966 reads as under :-

¶31

“16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.

¶32

(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after-

¶33

(a)informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

¶34

(b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in subrules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

¶35

(c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

¶36

(e)consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary.

¶37

[(1-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of subrule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under

¶38

4

¶39

clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay of Stagnation Allowance and such withholding or increments of pay or Stagnation Allowance is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years of to withhold increments of pay or Stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.] [Inserted by Notification No. C-6-30-92-3-I, dated 22-6-1992.]

¶40

(2)The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-

¶41

(i)a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him;

¶42

(ii)a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;

¶43

(iii)his representation, if any;

¶44

(iv)the evidence produced during the inquiry;

¶45

(v)the advice of the commission, if /any;

¶46

(vi)the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and

¶47

(vii)the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.”

¶48

From a bare perusal of the above-stated rule, it is quite vivid that the enquiry

¶49

officer has to follow the provisions contemplated under Rules 14(3) to 14(23) while imposing the minor penalty. In the present case, a show-cause notice was issued with allegation that the petitioner manipulated the service record. The petitioner denied the allegations made in show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect without holding a formal enquiry as prescribed in Rule

¶50

16 of Rules, 1966. Further no article of charge was issued, documents were

¶51

5

¶52

not provided and witnesses were also not examined. It appears that enquiry officer and presenting officer were also not appointed, and thus, there was total non-compliance of Rule – 16 of Rules, 1966. A report submitted by the enquiry committee constituted by the disciplinary authority cannot be treated as enquiry under the provisions of Rules, 1966 and findings recorded in said enquiry report cannot be treated as enquiry report according to Rules, 1966.

¶53

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions contained in Rule – 16 of Rules, 1966, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority Annexure P/1 dated 23.01.2020 and appellate authority Annexure P/2 dated 23.04.2021 are not sustainable in the eyes of law, consequently, both the orders are hereby quashed . Accordingly, instant petition is hereby

¶54

allowed .

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶57

$iddhant

Ram Avtar Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avtar Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitya Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Madhu Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Basant Kumar Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Sharma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kunti Jaiswal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh