JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant; Mrs. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondents No.2 & 3.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.707 of 2021, dismissing the writ petition and providing that in the event, if the petitioner submits a reply to the charge-sheet, the same shall be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, and thereafter, proceed in accordance with the relevant Rules.

3. By filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had called into question an order dated 11.11.2020 by which the petitioner was suspended, a charge-sheet dated 23.03.2020 and an order dated 18.04.2020, whereby, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed for the purpose of conducting departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner, in short, as presented in the writ petition, inter alia, is that the petitioner is holding a substantive post of General Manager in the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board (for short, ‘the Board’). In the year 2007-2008, certain irregularities were found, while conducting an audit by the Accountant General over the affairs of Board with respect to purchases made and maintenance of stock register. After a lapse of seven years by an order dated 02.12.2015, the State Government had appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry. Though a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 24.04.2018 pointing out certain irregularities, no adverse comments and/or finding of guilt was recorded against the petitioner. In such enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was also granted to the petitioner. Much later, a show-cause notice dated 12.06.2019 was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied by a letter dated 24.06.2019. By an order dated 18.04.2020, the respondent No. 1, without any authority of law and without jurisdiction, appointed a Departmental Enquiry Officer as the Enquiry Officer and an Assistant Director (Finance) of the Board as the Presenting Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner being on earned leave at that point of time, the said order was served with the charge-sheet dated 23.12.2020. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 11.11.2020 by respondent No. 3, on account of institution of the departmental enquiry by the State Government.

5. It is pleaded that charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and baseless and the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner, after unexplained and unwarranted delay of more than 12 years, causing prejudice to the petitioner. The respondent No. 2, i.e., the Managing Director of the Board, has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension as it is the Board, being the Appointing Authority, is vested with such powers under Rule 51 of the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2015, (for short, ‘the Rules of 2015’). In the same vein, order dated 18.04.2020 issued by the respondent No. 1 is assailed contending that it is not the Disciplinary and/or the Appointing Authority.

6. It appears that the writ petition was disposed of on the first day of listing before the Court. The learned Single at paragraphs-8 to 11 observed as follows :

“8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, some of the admitted factual positions as it stands from the pleadings of the writ petition is that the petitioner undisputedly was working as a Deputy General Manager/Senior Tourism Officer during the period 2007-08. In the year 2007-08 itself there was an audit objection in respect of certain financial irregularities in respect of various purchases that were made in the Department. It also reflected that during the said period of time, the