Disciplinary authorities must provide a fair hearing before imposing penalties, and arbitrary punishment without justification violates principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of order dated 23.7.2014 (Annexure P/2) whereby respondent No.1 ordered to deduct 5% amount from the pension of the petitioner for a period of three years as also to the order dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) by which appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No.1 as being not maintainable.

02. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was posted as Additional Collector, Durg in the year 2010-11 and during this period, there was reorganization of two districts from Distt. Durg i.e. Balod and Bemetara and then there was need of 70 posts of Patwari due to formation of new districts and on account of strike of Patwaris in Balod district, out of sanctioned posts of 203 Patwaris, only 134 Patwaris were working whereas in Bemetara, out of 176 sanctioned posts of Patwaris, only 129 Patwaris were working. At that point of time, as per directives of the State, the Patwaris were directed to work for census, agricultural and election besides their regular revenue work. Thus, looking to the situation of lack of Patwaris and nature of work, they were advised to take additional charge of various other Patwari circles. However, the Patwari Association held their meeting in this regard and refused to take additional charge, probably because they do not get any remuneration for such additional charge, and submitted their "Basta" (additional charge material) to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar accordingly informed the Collector about this vide Annexure P/3.

03. The Collector then issued various orders in between 6.9.2011 and 24.12.2011 for transfer of as many as 70 Patwaris from one place to another, however, these orders were subsequently cancelled by the Collector on the instructions of the Commissioner on 30.12.2011. It is worth mentioning here that majority of such transfer orders were signed by the Collector herself barring a few which were signed by the petitioner at the behest of the Collector. On complaint being made by one of the Patwaris to the Secretary, an explanation was sought by the Secretary on 10.2.2012 (Annexure P/4) from the concerned Collector as to how such transfer has been made contrary to the transfer policy during the ban period and in turn, the Collector submitted her reply on 1.3.2012 (Annexure P/5) explaining the fact situation necessitating issuance of these transfer orders. On the direction of the State Government, Department of Revenue and Disasters Management dated 12.3.2012 to the Commissioner, Raipur Division for conducting an inquiry into this matter and submitting the report by 16.3.2012, the Commissioner got an inquiry conducted by the Additional Commissioner (Inquiry Officer) and the Dy. Commissioner (Revenue) who submitted their inquiry report on 16.3.2012 to the Commissioner (Annexure P/6) wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner made proposals for transfer of Patwaris at a large scale during the ban period and the transfer was made with the approval of the Collector.

04. Acting on the said report of the Commissioner, an immediate order of suspension of the petitioner was issued on 20.3.2012 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, on 27.3.2012 a charge sheet (Annexure P/8) was issued to the petitioner along with list of documents and witnesses which was replied to by the petitioner in detail on 18.4.2012 (Annexure P/9). However, being not satisfied with his reply, departmental inquiry was initiated against him and on 19.12.2013 the inquiry report (Annexure P/10) was submitted wherein the petitioner was not held guilty and it is recorded that no loss is caused to the State Exchequer. However, the higher authorities arbitrarily dismissed the said findings in the inquiry report and held the petitioner guilty while exonerating the Collection with a remark to be cautious in future in such administrative work vide Annexure P/12. By the impugned order dated 23.7.2014 it was directed