D.K. Chandel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 269 of 2025 Nirmal Kumar Singh S/o Shri Adhar Singh Thakur Aged About 61 Years Earlier Posted As Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division - Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.), Presently Executive Engineer In The OfÏce Of Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle No.-1, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 5) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 1) 2. The Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 2) 3. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Durg Circle, Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 3) 4. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Circle No.1, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 4) 5. D.K. Chandel S/o P.L. Chandel Aged About 60 Years R/o Quarter No. G-8, P.W.D. Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Review Petitioner), (Respondent No. 5 In W.P.S.) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.26 10:50:47 +0530 For Appellant For Respondents/State For Respondent No. 5 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 24 .04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/State and Mr. Shobhi Koshta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 24 of 2025 (D.K. Chandel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the review petition preferred by the respondent No. 5 herein and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in WPS No. 7971 of 2024 (Nirmal Kumar Singh vss State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has been set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that vide the order dated 30.11.2024 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) the appellant, who was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, District Bemetra (CG) has been transferred to the OfÏce of Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Raipur as Executive Engineer on administrative exigency. Similarly vide the said order dated 30.11.2024, the respondent No. 5, who was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Division No. 3, Raipur (CG) has been transferred to the post of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, District Bemetra 3 (CG) i.e. in place where the answering respondent was already posted. The date of birth of the appellant is 01.07.1963 and he is attaining the age of superannuation 62 years on 30.06.2025 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since only 07 months (as on date less than 3 months) service of the appellant remains, but without there being any administrative exigency and without considering the fact that the appellant is going to be superannuated on 30.06.2025 passed the impugned transfer order dated 30.11.2024 (Annexure P/1 in
Decision
the writ petition) and transferred the appellant from the post of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, District Bemetra (CG) to the OfÏce of Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Raipur as Executive Engineer on administrative exigency just in order to accommodate the respondent No. 5. He also submits that the appellant has been transferred from one circle at District Durg to another circle at District Raipur. Being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 30.11.2024, the appellant had preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No. 7971 of 2024 before this Court on the ground that the appellant is to retire within a very short span of time i.e. on 30.06.2025 and only 07 months service is remaining and at the fag end of career the appellant may not be disturbed. The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 06.12.2024 and after hearing the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition by recording the submission of the appellant. 5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7971 of 2024, the present respondent No. 5 had preferred a writ appeal bearing WA No. 10 of 2025 before this 4 Court. It is pertinent to mention here that no any allegation regarding suppression or misleading the Court was made by the respondent No. 5 agaisnt the appellant herein and on the contrary had stated that on 03.12.2024, respondent No. 5 had assumed the ex-charge at Bemetra. Further, it was also admitted and stated by the respondent No. 5 that the Transfer Policy, 2022 is still in existence as no new transfer policy has been framed by the respondents/State after the Policy of 2022. He also stated that the said writ appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 16.01.2025 and after hearing the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to dismissed the writ appeal as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to law before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 herein has preferred the review petition, whereas the respondent No. 5 had already given his joining before the OfÏce of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Nawa Raipur (CG) on 09.12.2024 (annexed as Annexure R/4 in the return of the appellant in review petition and in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.12.2024 in WPS No. 7971 of 2024, the appellant had submitted his joining on 09.12.2024 (annexed as Annexure R/3 in the return of the appellant in review petition) and is performing his duties with utmost sincerity and devotion on the post of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Bemetra, District Bemetra 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant herein had filed his return to the review petition bring all the subsequent facts and events on record and had stated that owing to the marriage of niece of the answering respondent therein at his home town Sagar (MP), the appellant had moved an application for grant of 03 days casual leave 5 on 29.11.2024 (annexed as Annexure R/1 in the return of the appellant in review petition) before the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Circle Durg with permission to leave the headquarters from the evening of 01.12.2024 till the morning of 05.12.2024. During the leave period of the respondent No. 5 therein had ex parte taken the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, PWD Division Bemetra District Bemetra (CG) on 03.12.2024 (annexed as Annexure R/2 in the return of the appellant in review petition) without handing over and taking over of the charge. He further contended that the aforesaid review petition filed by the respondent No. 5 herein came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 11.03.2025 and upon hearing the learned Single Judge allowed the review petition and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in WPS No. 7971 of 2024 was set-aside directing the the respondent authorities to execute the transfer order dated 30.11.2024 and take joining of review petitioner/respondent No. 5 herein at the transferred place of posting at Bemetra and relieve the appellant herein for joining at his transferred place at Raipur and had further made certain observations against the appellant imposing cost of Rs. 25,000/- against the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that every employee expects and wishes to get discharged from the service on attaining the age of superannuation in a fair and honorary manner. In the instant case despite having unblemished service career the observation made by the learned Single Judge had casted a stigma at the fag end of his service career despite the fact that there is no misrepresentation and suppression of material facts before the learned Single Judge. The appellant herein further submits that the writ petition of the appellant was primarily on the 6 ground that he is due to retire within a short span of 6-7 months and his retiral dues would be adversely affected on account of such transfer from one circle to other. The same is also reflected from the submission of the appellant during the course of hearing of the writ petition. He further submits that in paragraph 14 of the review petition, the learned Single Judge had also come to the conclusion that the appellant herein had suppressed the fact that after passing of the transfer order he has joined at the transferred place which is factually incorrect as till the filing of the instant appeal the appellant had never submitted his joining at the transferred place. On the contrary, it is the respondent No. 5 herein who had submitted his joining on 09.12.2024 in the ofÏce of Engineer-In-Chief after the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The aforesaid fact was in fact suppressed by the respondent No. 5 herein in the writ appeal as well as the review petition and the same was also brought notice of the learned Sinlge Judge in the return to the review petition filed by the appellant by placing the joining letter dated 09.12.2025 on record as Annexure R4 (in the review petition). Further, in paragraph 15 of the review petition, the learned Single Judge held that suppression of the aforesaid material fact is a misconduct and for the said reason the review petition was allowed imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant. Since there is no misrepresentation or suppression of fact and further there is no malafide intention of the appellant and the action of the appellant is bonafide. The appellant is having unblemished service career and is now at the fag end of his service career expecting a honorable discharge from the service, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the adverse observation 7 and cost imposed against the appellant in paragraphs 14 and 15 are liable to be deleted/expunged. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that in compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge dated 11.03.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 24 of 2025, the appellant herein has given the charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetra Division, District Bemetra (CG) to the respondent No. 5 herein on 26.03.2025 and accordingly had joined at the transferred place i.e. OfÏce of the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle No. 1, Raipur (CG) on 03.04.2025. Hence, this appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the review petition filed by the respondent No. 5 herein, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. While allowing the review petition filed by the respondent No. 5 herein, the learned Single Judge observed in paragraphs 14 and 15, which is reproduced below: “14. In light of aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite apparent that respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh has deliberately suppressed the material facts regarding existence and applicability of transfer policy 2022 which is in fact not in existence. Nirmal Kumar Singh has 8 further made a pleading in respect of the transfer policy 2022 and has filed the said document deliberately only in order to obtain an order in his favour. He has further suppressed the fact that after passing of the transfer order, he has joined his transferred place and thereby misled this Court which is in fact misuse of proceedings of the Court. He ought to have placed true material facts of the case and should have placed all the materials so that this Court can pass order while appreciating the entire aspect of the matter. He has further went to take charge on the basis of the order dated 6.12.2024 passed by this Court in the writ petition which is also not acted upon bona fidely. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the suppression of material fact by respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh is a misconduct and for this reason alone the present review petition is liable to be allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which to be borne by respondent No.5 herein Nirmal Kumar Singh. Nirmal Kumar Singh is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the said amount is not deposited by 9 him before the Registry within the said period then the Registry is directed to initiate proceedings against him in order to recover the said amount in accordance with law.” 12. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the review petition, we do not find any illegality or irregularity and the review petition has rightly been allowed on the ground of suppression of materials fact by the appellant herein. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already joined his transferred place of posting and has only two months left for his retirement, the cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and this Court hopes and trust that no adverse inference would be drawn by the respondent authorities against the appellant in light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 24 of 2025. 13. With aforesaid observation / direction, the present appeal is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan