Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Ramji Ram Manjhi S/o Late Ramvilas Manjhi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WP (S) No. 4831 of 2014
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Manoj Paranjpe.
For the Respondent: Pankaj Singh.
IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness by recording reasons for disagreement with enquiry findings and allowing representation before imposing penalties.
Headnote:
(A) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 – Rule 15(2) – Disciplinary proceedings – Petitioner challenged penalty of stoppage of increments and recovery of amount – Disciplinary authority failed to follow due process by not recording reasons for disagreement with enquiry report and not providing opportunity to represent – Orders quashed. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Natural Justice – Principles of natural justice require that when disciplinary authority disagrees with enquiry findings, it must record reasons and allow representation before finalizing its decision. (Para 10)
Facts of the case: The petitioner was penalized despite two enquiry reports finding no charges proved against him, leading to a challenge of the disciplinary authority's actions.
Findings of Court: The court found that the disciplinary authority did not adhere to Rule 15(2) and principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the orders.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority exceeded its powers and violated natural justice principles in imposing penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the disciplinary authority to provide reasons for disagreement with enquiry findings and allow the charged officer to represent before imposing penalties.
Result: Writ petition allowed, orders quashed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing legality, validity and correctness of order dated 14.02.2014 (Annexure P/1), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging order dated 28.01.2002 (Annexure P/8), whereby the petitioner was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.21,407/- in exercise of powers under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth shall be referred to as the “CCA Rules 1966”) has been rejected.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on following factual background:
2.1. The petitioner while posted at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kusumi, was issued a charge-sheet on 21.02.1997 (Annexure P/2), alleging five charges against him. Following that, an enquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the enquiry, the first enquiry report was submitted by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare on 30.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) holding that no charges against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority directed for second enquiry against the petitioner and the second enquiry report was submitted by the Deputy Collector, Surguja on 16.04.2001 (Annexure P/4), but again none of the five charges against the petitioner were found proved.
2.2. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/5), the disciplinary authority while taking dissenting view on the enquiry reports, directed the petitioner to submit a representation/explanation. In compliance with the same, the petitioner submitted his representation, which was found to be unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and vide the impugned order dated 28.01.2002 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner was imposed with penalty of stoppage of five annual increment with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.21,407/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved with the impugned order dated 28.01.2002, and preferred an appeal (Annexure P/9) under Rule 24 of the CCA Rules, 1966 before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2014 (Annexure P/1), and against the said impugned orders this writ petition has been filed.
3. In this writ petition, it has been pleaded that the disciplinary authority exceeded its powers, while exercising powers conferred under Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. Return has been filed by the respondents supporting the impugned orders being passed strictly in accordance with law.
5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority is in the teeth of the provisions contained under Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966 and also contrary to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
6. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel would support the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner did not raise any objection when he filed representation in reply to memo dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/5). As such, the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.
8. In order to consider the dispute so raised in the instant writ petition, it would be appropriate to notice Rules 15 (1) & (2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which reads as under:
“15. Action on the inquiry report:
(1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and
