ORDER :

(Through Video Conferencing)

1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. In a regular departmental enquiry held against the two petitioners herein and two other employees, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No.2 herein) vide order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) inflicted minor penalty under Rule 10(iv) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short 'Rules of 1966') withholding three annual increments with non-cumulative effect. The petitioners did not call in question the order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) and it had thus attained finality, but thereafter, vide order dated 02/06/2010 (Annexure P-1), the Disciplinary Authority cancelled its earlier order (Annexure P6) of withholding three annual increments of the petitioners with non-cumulative effect and substituted it with the order of recovery of Rs.7,50,000/- from each of the petitioners, which has now been called in question by the petitioners by way of both these writ petitions.

3. Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for petitioner in WPS No. 3267/2010, as well as Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for petitioner in WPS No. 3268/2010, both would make a solitary submission that the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) has not been conferred with the power of review under the Rules of 1966 as it has only been conferred upon the Appellate Authority under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of 1966, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) could not have cancelled its earlier order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) inflicting minor penalty upon the petitioners withholding three annual increments with non-cumulative effect and then it could not have substituted it with the impugned order dated 02/06/2010 (Annexure P-1) passed for recovery to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- from each of the petitioners under Rule 10(iii) of the Rules of 1966 and that too, without recording any finding that such an amount is recoverable from the petitioners because of the loss caused to the State Government for negligence or breach of order on the part of the petitioners as required under Rule 10(iii) of the Rules of 1966, as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

4. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents/State, would support the impugned order and submit that since huge loss was caused by the act of misconduct on the part of the petitioners, therefore, pursuant to the order of the Government, the Disciplinary Authority directed for recovery of loss to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- from each of the petitioners, as such, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. It is not in dispute that in a regular departmental proceeding held against the petitioners as well as two other employees, the Director, Veterinary Services i.e. respondent No. 2 being the Disciplinary Authority had inflicted minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 10(iv) of the Rules of 1966 and directed for withholding three annual increments of the petitioners with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) and the said order was not questioned by the petitioners and it had already come into force and had become final. Thereafter, vide the order impugned dated 02/06/2010 (Annexure P-1), the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2), pursuant to the order of the Government, cancelled its earlier order (Annexure P-6) directing withholding of three annual increments with non-cumulative effect and substituted it with the order of recovery of Rs.7,50,000/- from each of the petitioners.

7. The question for consideration is, whether the Director, Veterinary Services i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, being the Disciplinary Authority, was justified in cancellin