The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, ruling that arbitrary termination without due process is unenforceable.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the respondent authority, namely the Secretary, School Education Department, Chhattisgarh, whereby the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the termination order dated 31.07.2018 has been rejected and the said termination has been affirmed, the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has proceeded on wholly erroneous and extraneous considerations.

3. The appellate authority has held that the petitioner was in the habit of remaining on unauthorized leave and that on earlier occasions notices were issued to him and a punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. It has further been observed that thereafter the petitioner again remained unauthorizedly absent and allegedly committed misconduct with co-employees and superior officers, including coming to office in an intoxicated condition and indulging in inappropriate behaviour. On the basis of the alleged acceptance of charges by the petitioner, the appellate authority concluded that the petitioner, being a Peon, was liable to be inflicted with a major penalty of removal from service under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘CCA Rules, 1966’). However, while deciding the appeal, the appellate authority failed to consider the legality and procedural infirmities of the departmental enquiry as well as the proportionality of the punishment imposed, and instead summarily rejected the appeal solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days. The appellate authority overlooked the fact that the appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and was preferred after the lapse of about two years due to bona fide reasons, yet no finding was recorded thereon. Thus, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation without consideration of the case on merits, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

4. By filing the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set-aside order of termination dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) and also the order dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure P-1).

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

5. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon in the year 1989 on a temporary basis and his services were subsequently regularized vide order dated 25.03.1996. Since then, he continuously served the Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Corporation with sincerity and honesty. A departmental enquiry under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, 1966 was initiated against the petitioner on 30.01.2018 and a charge-sheet containing four charges relating mainly to alleged unauthorized absence was served upon him. The petitioner submitted detailed replies explaining his medical condition and family circumstances and expressed remorse, assuring that such lapses would not recur.

6. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted in which all the charges were held proved; however, the enquiry report was never