S.D. Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appell
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.05.03 11:38:16 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:20125-DB NAFR WA No. 290 of 2025 S.D. Baghel S/o Late Shri C.R. Baghel Aged About 70 Years Retired Ceo, Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korea Chhattisgarh R/o L.G. 16, Near Sai Temple Padum Nagar, Bhilai -3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Secre- tary, Department of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Tribal Development, Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - S.K. Wahne, Asstt. Commissioner Tribal Development, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.05.2025 1 Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. 2 2 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the Order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No.3094/2018 and further be pleased to grant the relief as prayed by the
Decision
petitioner in the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.” 3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.3094/2018 (S.D. Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, the appellant/writ petitioner was working in the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) under the Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and respondent No.3 being junior to the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Tribal Development in the year 2012 and thereafter, he was promoted to Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016, but the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the appellant/writ petitioner on account of the alleged 3 irregularities in the purchase of material and when no action was taken to conclude the departmental inquiry, hence, the appellant/writ petitioner approached the Court by filing WPS No.355 of 2017, which was disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the departmental inquiry in accordance with law and thereafter, in the year 2017, the departmental inquiry was finally concluded by the respondent authorities. 5 Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondents, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.3094/2018 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2025 on the ground of delay and laches. 6 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the appellant/writ the petitioner has not challenged the promotion of respondent No.3 whereas he was seeking promotion for himself from which he was deprived due to pendency of the departmental enquiry. It has been contended that the appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition within time after his retirement and only sought for consideration for promotion at par with respondent No.3, which has not been considered by the 4 learned Single Judge. It has been further contended that the grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is that during the departmental enquiry, the appellant/writ petitioner was not given promotion by the Department, whereas respondent No.3, who was junior to him, was promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Tribal Development in the year 2012 and thereafter, promoted to Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016. It has been argued that the appellant/writ petitioner has been retired on 31.01.2017, but the procedure of sealed cover was not complied with by the Department after the termination of departmental enquiry and if there was no such departmental enquiry pending against the appellant/writ petitioner, he would have been promoted instead of respondent No.3. It has been lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and submitted that respondent No.3, though junior to the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted in the year 2012, whereas the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2018, after a lapse of more than 6 years as also the delay has not been explained properly by the appellant/writ petitioner, as such, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the 5 ground of delay and laches, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 10 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC Online SC 64, Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply (supra), Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak (supra) and Bichitrananda Behera (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of 6 years and in para 7 of the writ petition, he has stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. The petitioner utterly failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition. Therefore, in the considered opinion 6 of this Court, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on account of delay and laches. No costs.” 11 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 as well as from perusal of the record of the writ petition, it has been reflected that the appellant/writ petitioner was working in the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) under the Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and respondent No.3 being junior to the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Tribal Development in the year 2012 and thereafter, he was promoted to Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016, but the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the ground that a departmental inquiry was instituted against the appellant/writ petitioner on account of the alleged irregularities in the purchase of some materials. It has been further reflected from the record that the departmental inquiry was finally concluded by the respondent authorities. 12 From perusal of the record, it seems that the appellant/writ petitioner retired on 31.01.2017, at that relevant time, the departmental enquiry was pending and on 07.11.2017, the Under Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department decided to terminate the departmental enquiry by accepting the suspension period as duty 7 period for all the purposes. 13 Taking into account the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was suspended, but the Department vide order dated 07.11.2017, decided to terminate the departmental enquiry by accepting the suspended period as duty for all purposes, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot claim that respondent No.3/junior to him was promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Tribal Development in the year 2012 and thereafter, promoted to Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016 as at that relevant point of time, the appellant/writ petitioner was under suspension because of some financial irregularities and due to which, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against him for the aforesaid period. 14 Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that though the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, which warrants no interference, the writ petition even lacks merit and as such, this appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu