Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Upma Singh Bhadoria, Wd/o. Late Shri Rajbeer Singh Bhadoria - Petitioner
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through the Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 3783 of 2017
Decided On : 14-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Awadh Tripathi.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru.
IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and the right of defense of an employee against charges leveled.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Service Jurisprudence - CG State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations 1962 - Section 409 of IPC - Article 226 - 27 of CG State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations 1962 - The court discussed the principles of natural justice and the right of defense of an employee against charges leveled. It emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and highlighted the failure of the respondent authorities to comply with these principles in the case. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to pay all arrears of provident fund, pension, and gratuity to the petitioner's husband.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, a Senior Branch Manager, was suspended and faced charges of irregularity in the stock of rice of civil supplied corporation. He was convicted but later acquitted of the charge under Section 409 of IPC. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's husband's representation for payment of provident fund, gratuity, and outstanding dues due to recovery orders against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was arbitrary and contrary to the principle of natural justice. It emphasized the unfairness of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner's husband and the failure to consider his representations. The court also highlighted the absence of proper documentation and the failure to comply with the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's husband's representation for payment of provident fund, gratuity, and outstanding dues. The court also addressed the failure to comply with the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the respondent authorities to comply with the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings and the absence of proper documentation. It emphasized the right of defense of an employee against charges leveled and set aside the impugned orders, directing the respondents to pay all arrears of provident fund, pension, and gratuity to the petitioner's husband.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 21.6.2017 and 19.2.2010 were set aside. The respondents were directed to pay all arrears of provident fund, pension, gratuity, etc. of the petitioner's husband within three months from the date of receipt of the court's order.
ORDER :
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.6.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the representation of the petitioner’s husband dated 30.8.2016 for payment of provident fund, gratuity and other outstanding dues has been rejected on the ground of there being certain recovery orders against him.
2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner’s husband while working as Senior Branch Manager in the Branch Office of Warehousing Corporation at Bilaigarh (CG), was suspended on 25.5.2005 on the charges of carelessness and irregularity in 3318 sacks of rice of civil supplies corporation which was found low in stock during the period of his tenure i.e. 27.5.2000 to 26.4.2005. Accordingly, on 2.10.2005 an FIR was registered against him for the said offence under Section 409 of IPC and challan was filed on 31.8.2006 before the concerned Court. In the departmental enquiry, he was found guilty and proceedings for recovery of the amount equivalent to the amount of the said rice from his salary were initiated. Though the petitioner’s husband made representations from time to time against the said recovery proceedings but the same were not considered.
On 7.6.2007 with regard to recommendation for acceptance of setup of the Corporation, a meeting was held by the Board of Directors of the Corporation wherein the State decided to abolish the post of Junior Technical Assistant in the set up and accepted 140 posts of Junior Technical of CG State Warehousing Corporation at the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 vide letter dated 17.1.2008 and further, under the aforesaid terms, respondent No.1 re-designated the post of Junior Technical Assistant to the post of Technical Assistant and name of the petitioner’s husband was placed at Sl.No.30 vide order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure P/5). However, meanwhile on 19.2.2010 an interim order of recovery of Rs.21,58,394.90 was passed against him vide Annexure P/3. Against the said order, the petitioner’s husband made a representation to the Chief Secretary of Food and Supplies Corporation as also to President of CG Warehousing Corporation, Raipur vide Annexure P/4. He also made a representation dated 24.11.2010 to the concerned authority for determining his pay scale pursuant to order dated 7.8.2010, but no decision was taken thereon. Hence he again made representations on 17.1.2011 and 25.1.2011 regarding the benefit of seniority which was withheld due to departmental enquiry but the same were not considered.
3. After trial of the petitioner’s husband, he was convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2015 for the offence under Section 409 of IPC. The said judgment was challenged by him in appeal, however, during pendency of the appeal he died and it was contested on his behalf by the petitioner. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar after proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record vide judgment dated 7th June, 2016 in Criminal Appeal No.55/2015 (Annexure P/7) acquitted him of the said charge. In these circumstances, the impugned order/letter dated 21.6.2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2 is bad in law and liable to be set aside and the petitioner be granted the reliefs claimed for which are as under :
“10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned letter dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure-P1) issued by the Respondent No.2 and order of recovery vide order dated 19/02/2010 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the competent authority.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to relea
