IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary authority's power to order a de novo inquiry and frame additional charges must be in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, and must provide proper reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer.

ORDER :

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.05.2016 vide memo No. 2196 stha-Sancha./430/2016 (Annexure P/2) whereby respondent No.2 rejected the findings of the enquiry officer mentioned in its report dated 04.03.2016. He further challenged the order dated 05.01.2017 vide memo No. 94/stha- Sancha./430/2017 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No.2 framed article of Additional Charge No.1 against the petitioner as also the order dated 05.01.2017 vide memo No. 96/stha- Sancha./430/2017 (Annexure P/1) whereby the name of 4 new witnesses who were found totally responsible for the irregularity in the report of the enquiry officer dated 04.03.2016, was included as additional witnesses.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was working under respondent No.2 on the post of Assistant Food Officer (AFO) and during 2013-14, being Assistant Food Officer, he was posted at Aarang Abhanpur Division District- Raipur C.G. The petitioner was suspended by respondent No. 2 on 16.01.2015 alleging charges of irregularity for use and storage of allocated food for the operation of Dal Bhat Kendra in Rajyotsav Function-2014 and respondent No. 2 framed 2 articles of charges against the petitioner and served the same to the petitioner on 09.02.2015 which was specifically denied by the petitioner in his reply before the respondent No. 2. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. Deputy Director Khadya Nagrik Aapurti Avm Upbhokta Sanrakshan Vibhag was appointed as enquiry officer and one Mr. Devlal Adhikshak Khadya Nagrik Aapurti and Deputy Director Directorate Raipur were appointed as presenting officer. The petitioner specifically denied all the charges alleged against him and a detailed reply was submitted by him for such denial. In the said departmental inquiry proceeding, the department produced its witnesses namely- Mrs. Nilam Alma Assistant Director, Mr. Bhupendra Mishra the-then Assistant Director, Mr. Ravindra Soni the-then Assistant Director, Miss Manjula Salam, Mr. Dinesh Ram the-then in-charge of Distribution Canter Abhanpur Nagrik Aapurti Nigam And the petitioner himself appeared as defence witness.

3. On 04.03.2016, after completion of due process of the departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer after due consideration of the statements and document adduced by the parties submitted the enquiry report to respondent No.2 whereby the charges against the petitioner were found not proved. On 10.05.2016 respondent No.2 without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner rejected the findings recorded by the inquiry officer mentioned in its report dated 04.03.2016 in which it has been categorically mentioned that no charges have been proved by the department against the petitioner, and further directed for de novo inquiry by appointing other new inquiry officer and presenting officer. On 05.01.2017, respondent No.2 framed one additional charge vide its Memo No. 94/stha-Sancha./430/2017 against the petitioner and sought reply from him.

4. Further respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 05.01.2017 memo No. 96/stha-Sancha./430/2017 to establish the said additional charge by adding 4 more new witnesses namely- Mrs. Dayamani Minz Joint director of Khadya directorate the then Food Controller Raipur, Mr. Shahzafar Khan & Ms. Bindu Pradhan, both are Food inspectors in District Raipur and Mr. Durga Prasad Banjare, Director of Fair price shop Jai Durga prathmik sahkari upbhokta Bhandar Nayakbandha. The steps taken by respondent No. 2 are only for fulfilling the lacuna and anyhow to implicate the petitioner in false case with mala-fide intention and create fabricated grounds for illegal de novo inquiry. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

10.1. The Hon’ble