ORDER :

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, both were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. In a recruitment held for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, in the year 2007, selection committee was constituted consisting of Chief Executive Officer and Block Education Officer – the petitioner herein. On the basis of selection and verification of certificates, 13 Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were appointed, but later-on, on the basis of some complaint, by order dated 13-2-2008, a three-members enquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report on 14-5-2008 and according to the report, the certificates filed by 7 Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were found to be forged and their services were accordingly terminated by order dated 23-5-2008 and thereafter, the petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 22-5-2008 as to why appropriate action be not taken against him for the act of misconduct of not properly verifying the certificates of the said Shiksha Karmi Grade-III which the petitioner replied and ultimately, by order dated 6-12-2008, the competent authority imposed minor punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect which the petitioner has called in question in W.P.(S) No.4981/2009.

4. Thereafter, another order was passed on 7-7-2009 by the Collector, Raipur holding that since on account of the act of misconduct committed by the petitioner herein and the then Chief Executive Officer, the State Government has suffered monetary loss of total Rs. 2,03,313/-, therefore, both the officers will be responsible to the extent of one half each and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 1,01,655-50 ps., which has been called in question by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.4980/2009.

5. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner alleging that he has performed his duty strictly in accordance with law and he acted with all due diligence in verifying the certificates. The petitioner denied the charge thoroughly and specifically. His case is that the procedure envisaged in Rule 16(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1966’) has not been followed before inflicting even minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 10(iv) of the Rules of 1966 and further, order dated 7-7-2009 passed by the Collector which has been called in question in W.P.(S)No.4980/2009 is also without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as the order to impose minor penalty has been conferred by the State Government to the Commissioner by notification dated 4-8-2008, therefore, the order of recovery is liable to be set aside. Further case of the petitioner is that for one alleged act of misconduct, two minor penalties i.e. one of withholding two increments and another, the order of recovery, cannot be imposed simultaneously.

6. Return has been filed justifying the action of the respondents holding that preliminary enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry report dated 14-5-2008, certificates of 7 Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were found to be forged and fabricated and their services have been terminated, and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct, therefore, minor penalty of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect has been passed and later-on, the loss caused to the Government has been sought to be recovered by the order of the Collector, as such, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would make following submissions: -

1. While passing the order dated 6-12-2008 imposing minor penalty of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect, Rule 16(1) of the Rules of 1966 has not been followed and full opportunity to defend has not been given to the petitioner, theref