1 - R v. Anjankar S/o Late
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2413 of 2018 1 - R. V. Anjankar S/o Late Shri Vasantrao Anjankar, Aged About 64 Years R/o Gv-21, Geetanjali, Vihar, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Ram Charan Kapoor, Additional Director (Inquiry Officer), Finance Urban Administration And Development Department, Raipur, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. -2- 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order and list dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent State, and all recovered amount in pursuance of impugned order dated 10.10.2017 may kindly be directed to be refunded to the petitioner with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Chief Municipal Officer (Grade-B) on 01.09.1976. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Municipal Officer (Grade -A) vide order dated 12.10.2007. He was posted to the post of Joint Director in the Urban Administration and Development Department, Bilaspur in the year 2008-09. On 03.06.2008, the petitioner was appointed as a member of the Departmental Promotion Committee along with two other officers. Certain allegations were made and a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On 30.09.2009, respondent No.1 was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After the completion of the inquiry, an inquiry report was submitted on 22.08.2013, wherein the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the other two officers were found proved. On 31.01.2016, the petitioner got retired from the services on account of superannuation and a penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was inflicted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.06.2016. Vide order dated 10.10.2017, respondent No.1 took a decision to recover Rs.76,082/- from the pension of the petitioner 3 as on the date of inflicting the penalty, the petitioner was not in service on account of superannuation. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition. 3. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a penalty of stoppage of two increments was already inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 21.06.2016 and it was not challenged by the petitioner. He would further submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing and contrary to the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules of 1976’), the order was modified or reviewed by respondent No.1 and the order of recovery of Rs.76,082/- has been passed which is per se illegal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singh. He would submit that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted and the allegations were found proved against the petitioner and two other officers. He would further submit that the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed against the petitioner on 21.06.2016. He would contend that the petitioner got retired from services on 31.01.2016 and therefore, a penalty of stoppage of two increments could not be executed, thus, a decision was taken by respondent No.1 to recover the amount of Rs.76,082/-. He would further contend that full opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and thereafter, the order dated 10.10.2017 was passed strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rules 9(1) and 9(2)(a) -4- of the Rules of 1976 and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was a member of the Departmental Promotion Committee and certain irregularities levelled against him were found, therefore, an inquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. The article of charges was issued, the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceeding and thereafter, a penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed on 21.06.2016 by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner and two other officers. 7. From a perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the order dated 21.06.2016 was never challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner got retired from services on 31.01.2016 whereas the penalty was inflicted on 21.01.2016, therefore, the order of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect could not be executed against the petitioner and thus, the matter was referred to the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 10.10.2017 passed an order of recovery of Rs.76,082/- on the ground that the petitioner got retired from services prior to 21.06.2016. 8. A perusal of the order dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and even Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 does not provide 5 for modifying the penalty already inflicted on a Government servant, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Bajpayee appears to be misconceived. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that already there was a punishment inflicted upon the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing, such a penalty could not have been altered, modified and reversed, the order dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same is hereby quashed.
Decision
10.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge