The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for following the prescribed procedure, including issuing a show cause notice and conducting a departmental enquiry, before imposing a major penalty on an employee.

ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 directing imposition of major penalty on the petitioner and the order dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.3 imposing major penalty on the petitioner by demoting him to the post of Assistant Grade-III on the lower pay scale.

2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on the post of Pump Operator under the office of respondent No.2 in the year 1983. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.10.1995 (Annexure P/4) the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk which was later on re-designated as Office Assistant Grade-III. Vide order dated 1.7.2006 (Annexure P/5) the petitioner was promoted from the post of OA-III to OA-II and he joined his duties on the same day. Though the petitioner was discharging his duties on the post of OA-II but he was not being given the benefits of the said post, hence he made several representations to the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievance but no action was taken thereon. Therefore, he filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.1868/2014 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.9.2015 (Annexure P/7) with a direction to the Secretary, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Raipur to conduct an enquiry into the matter and if it is found that any DPC was held which led to issuance of order dated 21.7.2006, then the petitioner would be entitled to promotion from the said date and if it is found that no DPC was ever held, wherein the order dated 21.7.2006 was passed, the Secretary shall direct initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It was further directed that the Secretary shall also initiate disciplinary action against the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon who has submitted the affidavit.

Pursuant to the said order of this Court, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner examined himself and his witnesses, who clearly deposed that DPC was held and promotion order was duly passed on 1.7.2006. However, the Enquiry Officer examined the correctness of the promotion order as if he was an appellate authority of the Commissioner, in a biased and prejudicial manner and tried to establish that the promotion order has been passed contrary to the procedure which was not the subject matter of the enquiry as ordered by this Court, and recorded an erroneous finding in his enquiry report against the petitioner that the promotion order has been passed in an illegal manner and that the petitioner in order to obtain undue benefit of the said order has committed forgery. Based on the said enquiry report, respondent No.2 vide order dated 26.12.2016 directed the Commissioner to impose major penalty on the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner without applying his mind passed the impugned order dated 13.1.2017 demoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-III to its lower pay scale. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, the order dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure P/2) be kindly quashed.

10.2 That, the findings of the Enquiry report dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P/12) be kindly quashed.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to grant monetary and consequential benefits pursuant to joining of the petitioner on the promoted post of OA-II w.e.f. 1.07.2006.

10.4 That, the cost of the proceedings be kindly awarded.

10.5 Any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deem fit and appropriate may also kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed. The Enquiry Officer has acted in a biased manner without considering the defence raised by the pe