AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on : 08.11.2023 Order delivered on : 16.02.2024 WPS No.3893 of 2012 Chandadevi Shrivastava W/o Virendra Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 42 years, ANM District Hospital, Narayanpur, Distt.

Narayanpur (CG)

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Health Department, DKS Building, Raipur (CG)

2. Collector, Narayanpur (CG)

3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Narayanpur, Distt. Narayanpur (CG)

4. Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Orcha Distt.

Narayanpur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod K. Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Ms. Beenu Sharma, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Order

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3/CMHO, Narayanpur whereby she has been denied salary for a period from June, 2002 to February, 2003.

02. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner is working as ANM under Primary Health Center, Orcha. On 8.9.2003 a charge sheet was issued to her alleging that she is absent from headquarters Kohkameta and is residing and doing work from Narayanpur. Salary of the petitioner from May, 2002 to February, 2003 was withheld and departmental enquiry was initiated. The petitioner in her detailed reply denied the allegations, however, after departmental enquiry, on 12^th August, 2010 (Annexure P/4) an order passed withholding one increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect.

Since after departmental enquiry, there was no order for withholding salary, the petitioner requested the respondent authorities for grant of withheld salary from May 2002 to February 2003 but the same was denied to her stating that during the said period, she was absent and this charge has been proved in the enquiry. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13/3/12 (Annexure P/1) for not granting the salary as it is against the order passed in departmental enquiry and withheld salary from May 2002 to February 2003 and earned leave may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.

10.2 That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide the cost of the petition and other expense suffered by the petitioner.

10.3 That, any other writ, directions or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unconstitutional and not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order is bad as in the departmental enquiry, there is no order of withholding salary of the petitioner and only there is order to withhold one increment without cumulative effect. Even if for the sake of argument, any charge was found proved, then also only final order passed in the enquiry will be operative and not the other observations made therein. In her reply, the petitioner had also requested for grant of withheld salary but the same was not considered. Therefore, the impugned order/letter dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be granted the relief claimed in this petition.

04. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/State strongly opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner who was working as Female Health Worker and posted at Sub Health Centre, Kohkameta, CHC,Orcha was charge-sheeted for remaining absent from the headquarters during execution of various schemes such as Pulse Polio etc. from 1^st June, 2002 onwards and was negligent towards her work. In the departmental enquiry, in which she duly participated, the charges of misconduct and negligence was d