Chhattisgarh High Court: Major Penalty & Subsequent Orders Quashed for Denial of Fair Hearing in Disciplinary Proceedings (Rules of 2017, Art. 311(2)) - 2025-05-12

Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Orders Against Municipal Officer Citing Denial of Fair Hearing

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling delivered on May 8, 2025, by Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge, has quashed a recovery order, a subsequent transfer order, and a suspension order issued against Smt. Mamta Choudhary , a municipal officer. The Court found that the initial recovery order stemmed from a departmental inquiry that violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide a proper opportunity of hearing, rendering it, and the consequent actions, unsustainable.

Case Background: A Trio of Challenges

Smt. Mamta Choudhary , an officer in the municipal services, approached the High Court with three separate writ petitions (WPS No.1625/2024, WPS No.5182/2024, and WPS No.6781/2024) challenging actions taken against her by the State of Chhattisgarh and various officials of the Urban Administration and Development Department.

WPS No.1625/2024: Challenged a recovery order dated April 27, 2022, directing the recovery of Rs. 6,15,751/- from her salary in monthly installments. This pertained to alleged irregularities in the purchase of dustbins in 2016 when she was In-charge Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Municipal Council, Kharsiya.

WPS No.5182/2024: Challenged her transfer order dated August 21, 2024, from In-Charge CMO, Nagar Panchayat Lailunga, back to her substantive post. This transfer also involved the posting of Shri Chandra Prakash Shrivastava in her place.

WPS No.6781/2024: Challenged her suspension order dated October 4, 2024.

The High Court clubbed these petitions for a common hearing and disposal.

Petitioner's Arguments: Allegations of Unfairness and Mala Fides

Smt. Choudhary, through her counsel Mr. Awadh Tripathi , argued:

* Recovery Order: The departmental inquiry leading to the recovery was flawed, lacking a proper opportunity of hearing as mandated by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Nagarpalika (Karyapalan/Yantriki/Swasthya) Seva Bharti Tatha Seva ki Shartein Niyam, 2017 (Rules of 2017). She contended it amounted to double jeopardy, as she had already been punished with stoppage of one annual increment for the same alleged misconduct.

* Transfer Order: Her transfer from Lailunga, where she had served for only about five months, was arbitrary and intended to accommodate respondent No. 6 ( Chandra Prakash Shrivastava ), whose own past service record and eligibility for the CMO post were questioned. The transfer was also alleged to be contrary to a previous High Court judgment ( Dileep Kumar Uranw Vs. State of CG ).

* Suspension Order: The suspension was punitive, issued by an authority allegedly lacking jurisdiction, and amounted to double jeopardy as it related to the 2016 dustbin purchase for which she was already penalized. It was further contended that the suspension was a retaliatory measure after she obtained a stay on her transfer.

Respondents' Defence: Justified Actions

The State, represented by Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate, and counsel for other respondents, countered that: * The orders were legally sound. * The petitioner was involved in illegal dustbin purchases and misappropriation of funds. * An opportunity of hearing was provided during the appellate stage of the disciplinary proceedings. * The departmental inquiry was initially conducted under the Rules of 1973, which were then in force, but appellate procedures considered her demand for a hearing. * The petitioner allegedly had a history of financial irregularities.

Court's Analysis: Primacy of Natural Justice

The High Court meticulously examined the arguments and record. Key findings and reasoning included:

Violation of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that Rule 28 of the Rules of 2017, dealing with penalties, requires a full-fledged inquiry for imposing major punishments. This includes a show-cause notice, charge-sheet, examination of witnesses, and a proper opportunity of hearing, consistent with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The judgment noted, "While imposing any punishment upon any delinquent employee, the first and foremost thing is that he should be given proper opportunity of hearing, which in the present case has not been followed." (Para 21). This failure vitiated the entire departmental inquiry leading to the recovery order.

Interim Reliefs and Subsequent Actions: The Court had previously granted interim stays on the recovery, transfer, and change of headquarters in the suspension order. It observed that the suspension order, issued on the same day a writ appeal related to the transfer stay was disposed of, appeared to be an attempt to shift the petitioner from Lailunga. "From the contents of the order, it appears that order of suspension is passed only to shift the petitioner if not by way of transfer but by way of order of suspension." (Para 31, referring to interim order observations).

Legality of Transfer and Suspension: The Court found that the transfer of the petitioner and the posting of respondent No. 6 (a Community Coordinator from a Municipal Corporation to a Nagar Panchayat) was contrary to its earlier judgment in Dileep Kumar Uranw . The subsequent suspension was viewed as an extension of the effort to remove her.

Reliance on Precedents: The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments on the scope of judicial review under Article 226 and the importance of natural justice, including State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao , State Bank of India v. S K Sharma , and Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. These precedents underscore that while courts do not act as appellate authorities over departmental inquiries, they will intervene if proceedings violate natural justice, statutory rules, or are based on extraneous considerations.

Final Decision: Orders Quashed

Concluding its analysis, the High Court held: "Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of hearing while passing the order of recovery, as such, the impugned order of recovery dated 27.04.2022 is hereby quashed. As a consequence, transfer order dated 21.08.2024 as well as suspension order dated 04.10.2024, are hereby quashed." (Para 33)

All three writ petitions filed by Smt. Mamta Choudhary were allowed to this extent. No order as to costs was made.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the critical importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in departmental disciplinary proceedings. It serves as a reminder that administrative actions, particularly those imposing major penalties or affecting service conditions like transfer and suspension, must be well-founded, follow due process, and not be tainted by mala fides. The High Court's decision highlights its role in safeguarding employees' rights against arbitrary or procedurally flawed administrative actions.