1 - Dilip Kumar Katjhori S/o Late Pusaura Katjhori, Aged About 48 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.04.22 18:07:28 +0530 2025:CGHC:16582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2730 of 2018 1 - Dilip Kumar Katjhori S/o Late Pusaura Katjhori, Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Mohlai Road, Near The House Of Pawari, Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Ayurved, Yog And Natural Medicine, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Premises, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Ayurved Officer, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Ayurved Officer, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State :- Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer
Legal Reasoning
been issued. It is well settled principle of law that no order having civil consequences can be passed by an authority without adhering to the principles of natural justice. As such, the petitioner has suffered great prejudice as his order of promotion was cancelled without service of subject order of promotion to him on account of his custody, therefore, the order cancelling his promotion is liable to be set aside. 12. As such, impugned order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) being arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner’s right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India is hereby quashed. Consequently, the promotion order dated 25.09.2017 is restored and, it is held that the petitioner is deemed to have joined the 8 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) promotional post w.e.f. 15.12.2017 (i.e. the date he made representation seeking joining). However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any service benefit, as it has not been claimed in the present writ petition. 13. While parting with the record, I must place on record the appreciation for assistance rendered by Mr. Amrito Das, learned amicus curiae. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). @d!t! Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Arguments
Appeared as Amicus Curiae :- Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08.04.2025 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question the legality, validity and 2 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) correctness of order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Director, AYUSH, Chhattisgarh/respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – III has been revoked, in view of clause 2(1) of the promotion order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P/2), for not joining the promotional post within 15 days from the date of issuance of the promotion order. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop : - 2.1 The petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – III vide order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P/2), however, he could not join the said promotional post, as he was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur on 26.09.2017 (Annexure P/4), for alleged commission of offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and was detained in Central Jail, Durg. 2.2 Consequently, vide impugned order dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner’s promotion order dated 25.09.2017 was revoked in view of clause 2(1) of the promotion order for not joining the promotional post within 15 days from the date of issuance of the promotion order. 3 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) 2.3 Later on, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Durg vide order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the petitioner received both the orders, (i) promotion order dated 25.09.2017 & (ii) order of cancellation of promotion dated 30.10.2017, under the RTI Act on 15.12.2017 and on the same day, he made representation before respondent No.2 for revoking order dated 30.10.2017, stating that the said orders dated 25.09.2017 & 30.10.2017 were not served upon him and on account of his detention, he could not join the promotional post. However, the representation dated 15.12.2017 of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authority and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – III only in the year 2023, against which this writ petition has been filed. 3. The State has filed return stating inter alia that order dated 25.09.2017, promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-III was a conditional order and the same was received in the office of the District Ayurved Officer, District Durg on 26.09.2017 and, therefore, it was deemed to have been served upon the petitioner but still the petitioner failed to join the promotional post within the stipulated time period and, therefore, the promotion order 4 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) of the petitioner has rightly been revoked by the competent authority and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s promotion order was revoked without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is unsustainable and bad in law and in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the petitioner’s promotion order dated 25.09.2017 deserves to be restored. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel would support the impugned order. 6. Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae would submit that since the impugned order revoking the petitioner’s promotion has serious civil consequences, it could not have been issued without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as it denies the right to hold the promotional post despite the order of promotion having been issued and the petitioner cannot be penalized for no fault which can be attributed to him. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) 8. Admittedly, the order of promotion was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25.09.2017 (Annexure P/2), pursuant to the recommendations made by the departmental promotion committee and he was required to join the promotional post within 15 days from the date of issuance of the promotion order. However, before the order of promotion was served to him, he was arrested on 26.09.2017 by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur vide Annexure P/4 and on that account the petitioner could not join the said post. Consequently, his promotion order dated 25.09.2017 was revoked vide order dated 30.10.2017, by virtue of clause 2(1) of the promotion order for not joining the promotional post within the stipulated time period. The petitioner remained in police/judicial custody from 26.09.2014 and was later enlarged on bail by the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Durg vide order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure P/5). 9. The question for consideration would be whether the petitioner’s promotion order have rightly been revoked vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2017 ? 10. In the instant case, neither the order of promotion dated 25.09.2017, nor the order of revocation of promotion dated 30.10.2017 was served to the petitioner, as the 6 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) petitioner was in police/judicial custody for the period from 26.09.2017 to 25.11.2017. As per the records, the petitioner came to know about the order of promotion and the order of revocation of promotion only on 15.12.2017, and on the same day he made representation before the concerned authority for cancellation of order dated 30.10.2017 vide Annexure P/1 (Page No.12), but the same was not considered. 11. Though the petitioner was fairly considered for promotion and eventually was also granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – III, but right to join on the promotional post was denied to him for no fault attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner could not be made to suffer for the mistake or the situation which was beyond his control during the period of operation of the promotion order. Since the petitioner was in judicial/police custody, yet the appointing authority was under the legal obligation to serve the promotion order to the petitioner but it failed to do so and, thereby, the petitioner was deprived of his right to join and work on the promotional post. Also, the appointing authority did not consider the fact that the petitioner was in custody and, therefore, he could not be served with the promotion order and passed 7 (WPS No. 2730 of 2018) the impugned order in a highly mechanically manner without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which would amount to denial of the petitioner’s right to join and work on the promotional post. As such, the order of cancellation of promotion was issued arbitrarily without serving him the order of promotion. The cancellation of order of promotion has serious civil consequences, as it denied the petitioner’s right to hold the promotional post despite the order of promotion having