NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 7647 of 2022  Padmakar Rao Indiker S/o Late Shri Laxman Rao Indiker Aged About 57 Years Assistant Grade II, Tahsil Office, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department Ministry, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector, Rajnandgaon.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

12.06.2024

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon whereby order has been passed withholding 02 annual increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Appellate authority Commissioner, Durg Division, District Durg (C.G.) who has rejected the appeal vide order dated

05.07.2022.

2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-II with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner while posting as Reader in the Court of Tahsil, Rajnandgaon, without registering the case has initiated proceedings for correction in the revenue records, therefore, a charge-sheet has been issued to him on 14.07.2015 and accordingly an enquiry proceeding was initiated and the disciplinary authority after appreciating the evidence, material on record has held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are found proved.

3. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority respondent No. 2/Collector, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 24.01.2019 has imposed minor penalty by withholding 02 annual increments without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 before the Commissioner, Durg Division which was registered as Case c No. 154/ -121/Year 2018-2019 and the said appeal was dismissed on 05.07.2022 by the Commissioner by recording its finding that the punishment imposed by the respondent No. 2 is proportionate to misconduct.

4. Being aggrieved with both the orders, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court mainly contending that the non-speaking order has been passed. The disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order has not sought explanation by giving the copy of the enquiry report, therefore, there is illegality in the procedure which warrants interference by this Court. It has also been contended that since the enquiry deserves to be vitiated for non-compliance of statutory provisions, the imposition of punishment by disciplinary authority and affirmation of the same by the Appellate Authority deserve to be quashed and would pray for allowing of the writ petition.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission submits that in the enquiry proceedings proper opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. It has been submitted that due to alleged non-supply of enquiry report what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner has been pleaded by the petitioner therefore, non-supply of the enquiry report does not vitiate the punishment order imposed upon the petitioner. It has also been contended that all the facts are within his knowledge and in the enquiry proceedings he was given sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings as reflected from the order-sheet filed by the petitioner itself. It has also been contended that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct which does not warrant interference and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. It has also been contended that the learned Appellate Authority has also gone through the records of the case and thereafter well reasoned order h