IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that failure to provide an opportunity to contest enhanced punishment recommended by the PSC violated natural justice principles, necessitating the quashing of the punishment order.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present petition is against the order dated 29-7-2015 (Annexure– P/1) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26-3-2013 (Annexure-P/8) whereby after the departmental enquiry the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner for stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect, was dismissed.

2. (i) Case of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Commissioner, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department and Member Secretary of the Purchase Committee. A work order was issued in favour of M/s Friends, Baikunthpur, for supply of pillow & mattress. Since the code of fiber yarn & coir foam were same instead of coir foam it was mentioned as fiber yarn in the work order. Accordingly, the supplier made the supply of fiber yarn pillow & mattress. When the State at its part found that the coir foam pillow & mattress were not supplied, the supplier was asked to take back the entire material. It is not in dispute that the supplier did not take back the goods instead filed a petition before this Court. In the meanwhile, the correspondence was done vide Annexure – P/4 dated 10-5-2006 by the Commissioner, ST & SC Development Department and it was advised to the Collector, Surguja that since the supply has been made, the payment may be released in favour of the supplier. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner vide order dated 18-1-2007 passed by the Collector, Surguja and one Mr. Vijay Kumar Dhurve, Additional Collector was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

(ii) According to the petitioner, the Additional Collector could not have been appointed as Enquiry Officer in case of petitioner, who is in the post of Assistant Commissioner, and such appointment was against the circular dated 25-1-1999 and according to it the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was required to be appointed as Enquiry Officer. Despite the said fact, the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report dated 17-10-2007 (Annexure – R/4) was submitted and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file his reply. Subsequently, the order dated 26-3-2013 (Annexure-P/8) was passed. Perusal of the said order would show that charges No.1 & 3 were not found proved whereas charge No.2 partly proved and charge No.4 was found to be proved. It is also apparent from the said order that initially the State Government recommended for stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. However, while making consultation with the Public Service Commission (PSC), the PSC opined for stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the order for stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect was passed. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29-7-2015 (Annexure-P/1). Hence, this petition.

3. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the consultation was made with the PSC, it has recommended for enhancement of punishment without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Against the punishment order dated 26-3-2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Governor as per Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity ‘the CCA Rules’). He would further submit that in the meanwhile by letter dated 20-3-2014 (Annexure-P/10) the Under Secretary sent back the case to the Enquiry Officer for doing the needful. Thereafter, the amended enquiry report dated 29-5-2014 was submitted. He would also submit that after the matter was remanded, the petitioner was neither noticed nor any opportunity of hearing was given.

(b) Learned counsel would submit that even when the appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Governor, the Under Secretary could not have remanded the case, as the matter was ceased with the Hon’ble Governor. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place