Sushil Kumar Hedau v. State of Chhattisgarh & another), whereby, the writ petition filed by
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.22 16:03:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:13517-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 182 of 2025 Sushil Kumar Hedau S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Hedau Aged About 56 Years Earlier Posted As Draftman At Regional Office, Geology And Mining Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o House No. 674/1, Ward No. 41, Subhash Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Geology And Mining Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Geology And Mining Department, Mantralaya, Block - Iv, 1st And Iind Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 21.03.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 407 of 2018 (Sushil Kumar Hedau vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another),
Decision
whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that vide order dated 29/06/1993 he was appointed as Tracer and was posted in the office of Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Sub Office at Jagdalpur, Bastar. Subsequently, the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Draftsman and was working in the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Raipur. During the said posting on 27/01/2011 a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner stating that he is negligent in discharge of his duty and is absent also. The writ petitioner filed his reply on 18/03/2011, however, since the authorities were not satisfied, a charge-sheet was issued against the writ petitioner and a departmental enquiry was contemplated against him and in the departmental enquiry, he was punished by withholding one increment with cumulative effect while observing that if within two years, the work of the writ petitioner will be improved, then withholding of one increment with cumulative effect will be converted as non-cumulative effect. Vide 3 letter dated 17/07/2013 a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner stating that for 6th Economic Calculation, 2012 the writ petitioner was relieved but he has not joined. This notice was also replied by the writ petitioner, however again a departmental enquiry was initiated and in the said departmental enquiry, the writ petitioner was imposed with a censure and he was further warned for future. On 31/12/2016 an order was issued and the writ petitioner was granted "Kramonnat Vetanman" with effect from 31/07/2010. In this background, vide order dated 4/10/2017, the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired stating that he has completed 20 years of service, therefore as per Sub Rule (1) of Clause (b) of Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. According to the writ petitioner, his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the year 2013 was average, in the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 it was good. Since the ACR's are worth and are in favour of the petitioner, therefore the order of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law. According to the writ petitioner, the order of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law as the enquiry was initiated six months prior to the preceding year before first July, however in the present matter according to the policy of the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 25/04/2017 the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired whereas the policy of the State Government should be prospective and not retrospective. There is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner was required to 4 be compulsorily retired. Hence, the writ petitioner preferred WPS No. 407 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.02.2025. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is totally illegal, arbitrary and malafide and deserves to be set-aside. As per the policy dated 25.04.2017 criteria fixed for issuing the order of compulsory retirement is that of an employee completes 20 years of service or reaches 50 years of age as on January, the enquiry process is to be started 6 months prior to that i.e. last year 1st July, onwards and the said enquiry has to be sent to GAD upto 5th of February. As per the clause/ para 3(b) if an employee completes 20 years service or 50 year of age as on 1st July, the enquiry process is to be started prior to that the 1st January onwards and the said enquiry has to be complete upto 15th of July. The said report is to be sent to GAD upto 5th of August. As per the aforesaid clause 3 of the Policy, the mandatory condition is from 1st of July, of last year enquiry is to start and it should complete upto 15 January and report for execution is to be send upto 5th of February to the GAD.; or As per the clause 3(b) of the Policy, the mandatory condition is that from 1st January, the enquiry process is to be start and completes upto 15th July and the execution report is to be sent to the GAD upto 5th of August. The appellant/petitioner was initially appointed as Tracer and posted at office of the Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining, Sub-Office Jagdalpur, Bastar vide order dated 29.06.1993 issued 5 by the Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining State of M.P. Thereafter the appellant/petitioner was promoted on the post of Draftsman vide order dated 24.07.1998. The appellant/petitioner while working as Draftsman at Directorate of Geology & Mining Raipur, vide letter Dated 27.01.2011 issued a show cause notice to the appellant/petitioner for negligence of duty & absent. The appellant/petitioner vide Dated 18.03.2011 submitted his reply be ore the respondent authority, thereafter charge-sheet was issued against the appellant/petitioner, then a departmental enquiry was conducted. Vide order Dated 15.12.2014 issued by the Commissioner cum Director Directorate of Geology & Mining Raipur, thereby withholding one increments with cumulative effect. If the Disciplinary Authority after the observation within 02 year, appellant/petitioner behavior has been improvement then same will be restore as noncumulative effect. The Under Secretary, Geology & Mining Department, State of Chhattisgarh vide order Dated 15.07.2014 thereby transferred the services of the petitioner as Draftsman from Office of the Directorate of Geology & Mining, Raipur to Regional office Raipur. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the WPS No. 407 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Gupta vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 514 and further in the matter of Central Industrial Security Force vs. HC (GD) Om Prakash reported in (2022) 5 SCC 100 and has held concluded that in light of aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts as narrated in the case as well as the order for compulsory retirement passed against the writ petitioner, confirmed the order of compulsory retirement passed against the writ petitioner, holding that the order passed against the writ petitioner for compulsory retirement is not based on any arbitrary or capracious ground and there is no material of malafide or overlooking any relevant material as such in the narrow scope of interference in the judicial review. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet