Arun Kumar Saha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22555-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 316 of 2025 Arun Kumar Saha S/o Late Shri R.P. Saha Aged About 59 Years (Now Aged About 62 Years) R/o Labour Colony House No. 37, Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Medical And Health Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. District Ayurved OfÏcer Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Commissioner Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.10 14:55:42 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5674 of 2018 (Arun Kumar Saha vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while the appellant was working as Assistant Grade-II in the OfÏce of District Ayurved OfÏcer, Rajnandgaon, one Smt. Saraswati Verma made complaint against the appellant that he is misbehaving with the other employee and demanding bribe for various works to be performed by him. On the basis of above complaint, the District Ayurved OfÏcer, Rajnandgaon formed a three members committee for conducting enquiry into the complaint and after conducting enquiry, the Committee submitted report, whereby found the allegation against the appellant as false. Thereafter, the said Smt. Saraswati Verma again made same complaint against the appellant and 3 again a three members committee was constituted, who conducted enquiry and submitted report, whereby the allegations made by the complainant was found to be false. He further submits that one more enquiry was also held in which also the complaint was found false. 4. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that inspite of above, vide order dated 09.10.2015, the appellant was placed under suspension and subsequently vide order dated 20.11.2015, the suspension of appellant was revoked and he was served with departmental charge-sheet. Thereafter, the appellant filed reply to the charges by submitting that the complainant is keeping grudge against the appellant and she wants to transfer the services of appellant, therefore, she is repeatedly making false and frivolous complaints against the appellant and thrice the enquiry was conducted and found that the complaint made by the complainant is false, therefore, the proposed departmental enquiry against the appellant be dropped. He also stated that ignoring the above enquiry report and reply of the appellant, the departmental enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the appellant filed reply / representation against the findings recorded by the Inquiry OfÏcer, but the same was not considered and vide order dated 09.11.2016, the Collector (respondent No. 2) has imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that against the order dated 09.11.2016, the appellant filed an appeal before the respondent No.4 and vide order dated 26.07.2018 the punishment imposed by the respondent No. 2 has been amended and directed to withhold one 4 increment of appellant with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2018, the appellant preferred writ petition bearing WPS No. 5674/2018 before this Court, in which, notices were issued to the respondents and after serving of notice, the punishment was not implemented and later on vide order dated 19.01.2021, the punishment was directed to be entered into the service book of appellant and further directed to stop one increment of appellant with cumulative effect. He further contended that being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2021, the appellant filed another writ petition bearing WPS No. 1264/2021 before this Court. Both the aforesaid WPS Nos. 5674/2018 and 1264/2018 came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge and vide impugned order dated 24.03.2025, the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the aforesaid writ petition only on the ground that the appellant has not raised the grounds with regard to competency of the disciplinary authority and this issue was not raised before the disciplinary authority or before the appellant authority. Hence, the aforesaid impugned order dated 24.03.2025 is untenable in the eyes of law. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 5 9. A perusal of the documents would show that at the relevant time, the appellant was posted as Assistant Grade-II under respondent No.3. One complaint was made by Smt. Saraswati Verma against the appellant with regard to misbehavior. The other employees made a complaint with regard to the demand for bribes. An article of charge was issued with the allegations that (i) the appellant misbehaved with his colleagues; (ii) he demanded bribes from the Government servants to pass TA bills and (iii) he used to send obscene messages to female colleagues. The Additional Collector, District Rajnandgaon constituted a Committee to inquire into the matter. A report was submitted wherein the allegations were not found proven. In the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry OfÏcer conducted a full- fledged inquiry and submitted its report whereby the allegations were not found proven by the majority. The Collector inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 09.11.2016. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Durg Division and it was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2018. The appellant has challenged the order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) by filing the writ petition. 10. In the entire writ petition, the appellant has not raised grounds with regard to the competency of the disciplinary authority. This issue was not raised before the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority and for the first time, this issue has been raised before the learned Single Judge. 11. It is a well-settled principle of law that the disciplinary authority may concur with the report of the inquiry ofÏcer or may have a different view. 6 12. In the present case, the disciplinary authority while exercising its discretion inflicted a penalty of stoppage of two increments. The Appellate Authority has afÏrmed those findings. 13. Admittedly, the appellant is an employee of the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. According to the Service Rules, the appointing authority of the appellant was Divisional Joint Director. The appellant could not demonstrate that the Collector had no authority of law to exercise the power of the disciplinary authority. There is no allegation with regard to the procedural part of the departmental inquiry. Therefore, taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the learned Single Judge does not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan