Yashwant Kumar Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh and other), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.31 11:04:28 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:5572-DB NAFR WA No. 61 of 2025 Yashwant Kumar Dadsena S/o Late Shri B.N. Dadsena Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post-Set, Via Katgi, P.S. Kasdol, District-Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Mantralaya, Atal Nagarh, Raipur, Dist-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Horticulture And Farm Forestry Directorate Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Dist-Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector North Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Director Horticulture, Old Collectorate Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Director Horticulture North Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following 2 relief(s): “It is therefore prayed before this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.S. No.2751/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2751 of 2019 (Yashwant Kumar Dadsena v. State
Decision
of Chhattisgarh and other), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that while working on the post of Rural Extension Officer, Babukohka was served with charge-sheet of departmental enquiry for miss-appropriation of funds allotted for the agriculturist and also one criminal case was registered against him. In the criminal case, petitioner was acquitted from the charges after full-fledged trial vide order dated 22.12.2016 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar Kanker. Though petitioner has been imposed punishment in the departmental enquiry proceedings vide order dated 17.07.2007, however, there is no mention in the order as to the period of suspension, 3 therefore, the petitioner after acquittal in the criminal case has submitted representation before the Collector on 23.02.2017 making prayer that period of suspension be treated as period spent on duty and the salary for the period of suspension. Application/representation submitted by petitioner was arbitrarily partly rejected and it is held that petitioner will not be entitled for salary for the suspension period except the allowances. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by respondent No.3, he has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.2751 of 2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, instant appeal has been filed by appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that Hon'ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked in the month of June 2004 and the petitioner has completed the service till the age of his superannuation as such, the order of withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effect does not bar to release the service benefit of the suspension period. It has been contended that Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in ignoring that the punishment imposed in departmental proceeding would not relate back to the period when the alleged offence/misconduct was committed or in any 4 case when the same was detected, the punishment/penalty takes effect prospectively from the date of its imposition. It has been further contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in not holding that the petitioner is entitled to get the service benefit of the suspension period which was already been revoked and also erred in ignoring that the petitioner was promoted in the year 2013 on the post Horticulture Development Officer. Therefore, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court passed in Writ Petition No.2537 of 1999 vide judgment dated 15.07.2013. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered view that while relying the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and others v. Phool Singh, AIR 2022 SC 4176, learned Single Judge has observed that the claim of petitioner with respect to seeking quashment of the order dated 25.09.2017 of not interfering with the order of punishment in the opinion of this Court is in accordance with law and it does not call for any interference and insofar as the second relief seeking a direction to respondents to recalculate the pension by calculating period of suspension as the period spent service is concerned, in the order Annexure P-1, respondent No.3 has specifically ordered that petitioner will not be entitled for salary and allowance except for the subsistence allowance and further observed that the said period will be treated as continuity in service for the purpose of calculation of pension. The relief as sought in the para 10.2 has already ordered by the Collector, hence, no further order is required to be passed. Petitioner has not submitted any documents along with writ petition to show that pursuant to the order Annexure P-1 passed by the Collector on his suspension, the entire period of service is not considered for the purpose of calculating pension and other benefits, as such, no relief as prayed by petitioner can be granted. 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the 6 facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu