Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
S.P.R. Sharma – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 4810 of 2015
Decided On : 26-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D.R. Minj, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
Headnote:
Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 - sub-section (1) of Section 11 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 20 (2) - Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1966 - Rule 10 - Post of Extension Officer - Committed misconduct - Irregularity in allotment and sale of plots - Petitioner is holding substantive post of Extension Officer in Department of Co-operative Government of Chhattisgarh - He also worked as Liquidator between period - A complaint was lodged by complainant against petitioner and five other officers to Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog complaining that petitioner and some other officers have committed serious irregularity in allotment and sale of plots and thereby they have committed misconduct for which they are liable to be prosecuted departmentally and criminally - Upon receipt of complaint Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog directed State Government to conduct an enquiry and submit a report - State Government constituted a three-member committee to enquire into allegation which conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted report that embezzlement has been committed and complaint against petitioner is true – Thereafter matter was forwarded to Legal Adviser to learned submitted matter to who agreed with interpretation/note submitted by his Legal Adviser and acting upon that Secretary of Chhattisgarh directed Registrar Co-operative Societies to recover amount embezzled by holding a departmental enquiry and to submit compliance report within three months – Held, Thus in instant case has failed to communicate its recommendation in shape of report to competent authority rather it has communicated its order in shape of mandate and thereby transgressed advisory jurisdiction envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of Adhiniyam, 2002 to report its recommendation which is ex facie without jurisdiction and without authority of law - Lok Aayog being recommendatory body is not an authority empowered to pass an order and recommendation must be seen in contradistinction to direction or mandate as held by Supreme Court - Directing departmental proceeding for recovery of loss caused to State - Propriety vigor that too by an authority which is not entitled to do so have far-reaching civil consequences and State/respondent without conducting any proceeding straightway directed recovery of disputed amount against petitioner - As a fallout and consequence of above-stated discussion order of Lok Aayog directing holding of departmental proceeding for recovery of impugned amount and order passed by Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies directing recovery are hereby quashed – However Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog will have leave and liberty to communicate its findings and recommendations along with relevant documents and other evidence to competent authority in accordance with provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 11 of Adhiniyam, 2002 - Writ petition is allowed
1. The superb question of law that falls for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog has jurisdiction and authority to pass an order directing the State Government and/or its authorities to hold departmental enquiry mandatorily and to recover the amount in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 2002').
2. The above stated question of law arises for determination in the following factual backdrop:-
3. The petitioner is holding the substantive post of Extension Officer in the Department of Co-operative, Government of Chhattisgarh. He also worked as Liquidator of Maharana Pratap Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur between the period from 28-12-2007 to 26-3-2009. A complaint was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner and five other officers to the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog complaining that the petitioner and some other officers have committed serious irregularity in allotment and sale of plots and thereby they have committed misconduct for which they are liable to be prosecuted departmentally and criminally.
4. Upon receipt of complaint, the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog directed the State Government to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The State Government constituted a three-member committee to enquire into the allegation which conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted report that embezzlement of Rs. 41,11,100/- has been committed and the complaint against the petitioner is true. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the learned Pramukh Lokayukt and on 20-5-2014, the Legal Adviser to the learned Pramukh Lokayukt submitted the matter to the learned Pramukh Lokayukt who on 26-6-2014 agreed with the interpretation/note submitted by his Legal Adviser and acting upon that, on 28-6-2014, the Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog directed the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to recover the amount embezzled by holding a departmental enquiry and to submit compliance report within three months by 25-9-2014. The State Government and its authorities thereafter, by order dated 15-10-2015 (Annexure P-2), directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 54,70,600/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.
5. Impugning the legality and correctness of the order dated 28-6-2014 passed by the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog as well as the order dated 15-10-2015 passed by the Deputy Director, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging inter-alia that function and duty of the Lok Aayog under Section 11 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 2002, is recommendatory in nature and after enquiry on a complaint, if the complaint is established, the Lok Aayog has duty and responsibility to communicate its finding and recommendation along with relevant documents and other evidence to the competent authority/appointing authority. Thus, report of the Lok Aayog is recommendatory in nature and the Lok Aayog can make any recommendation for departmental action but no order or direction can be issued to necessarily hold departmental enquiry and to pass order directing recovery. It has further been pleaded that in the instant case, though prior to making of complaint to the Lok Aayog, departmental enquiry was already pending against the petitioner, but since the Lok Aayog has passed order for holding of departmental enquiry and recovery of the amount in dispute, the State Government without conducting any enquiry, only on the basis of order passed by the Lok Aayog, has directed recovery of Rs. 54,70,600/- which is absolutely bad and unsustainable in law.
6. Upon being noticed, the State/respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 have filed their return opposing the writ petition and supporting the order passed by the State Government and its authorities as just and proper.
7. The Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog - respondent No. 2, though served has chosen not to appear.
8. Mr. Vaibhav A. Gove
