In departmental proceedings, the non-supply of specific documents to an employee does not automatically vitiate the decision; the aggrieved party must prove that such non-supply caused actual, demonstrable prejudice to their defence to warrant judicial interference.

C A V Order

1. Being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 12.9.2011, whereby a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed, the Enquiry Report dated 29.7.2011 as well as the Appellate Order dated 4.1.2023, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority, without conducting a proper departmental enquiry in accordance with law, penalised the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “the Rules, 1966”), particularly ignoring the requirement for submission of written briefs. Furthermore, the findings are perverse as the charges were not proved in accordance with Rule 212 and Rule 217 of the Jail Manual ; notwithstanding this failure of proof, the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 of punishment was passed. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal; however, the Appellate Authority did not properly appreciate the relevant material available on record. Resultantly, vide order dated 4.1.2023, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 12.9.2011, without due application of mind and thereby, dismissing the appeal.

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation, he has challenged the order of punishment as well as the prior appellate order dated 24.4.2012 before this Court in WPS No.4236/2012, in which, this Court vide order dated 23.3.2022, while quashing the appellate order dated 24.4.2012, remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law, keeping in mind the provisions contained under Rule 27(2) of the Rules, 1966 without considering the comment of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg. However, after remand, the Appellate Authority did not consider the specific direction issued by this Court and passed the impugned order dated 4.1.2023, dismissing the appeal once again.

4. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:

10.1 To call for entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case from the respondents for kind perusal.

10.2 To set aside the impugned appellate order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure P/9).

10.3 To set aside the impugned penalty imposing order dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure P/5) and enquiry report dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P/4).

10.4 To direct to respondents to pay the petitioner all consequential benefits including the entire salary, emoluments etc. for the period that were affected due to imposition of major penalty as also revised pension alongwith 10% p.a. interest as also to repay amount recovered from petitioner alongwith interest @10% p.a. in the interest of justice.

10.5 To direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner cost of litigation.

10.6 To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty was imposed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, However, as per Rule 212 of the Jail Manual , the competent Disciplinary Authority for initiating action against a Head Warder is the Superintendent of Jail (Headquarters). He would refer to an order dated 13.8.2024 passed by this Court in WPS No.2578/2024 (Kamlesh Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). In the said case, the Court quashed a similar penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, holding that Regulation 214 of the Chhattisga