High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.12 10:52:20 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 322 of 2025 2025:CGHC:22974-DB NAFR Lalram (Lalaram) Kori S/o Late Shri Manore Kori Aged About 66 Years Retired From The Post of Rural Agriculture Development OfÏcer, R/o Gitanjali City Phase- 02, Khamtarai, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. The Director Department of Agriculture, Directorate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director Agriculture, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/States. 2. 3. 2 The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1358 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Rural Agriculture Development OfÏcer at Ghursena, Block Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) having a unblemished service record. In the year 2009, one farmer has made complaint against the appellant stating that he has been debarred from taking benefit of subsidy under the scheme regarding bore well/tube well drilling due to negligent act committed by the appellant on which preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Bemetara (C.G.) and suspended him vide order dated 28.08.2009. The appellant has been charge sheeted and departmental enquiry has been initiated under Rule 14 of "Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1966 (Hereinafter referred as “the Rule, 1966”) revoking the suspension order. Further, the respondent No.3 imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 07.06.2011. 4. The appellant filed appeal against such order under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1966 and Appeal memo sent through registered post on 08.07.2011 but it was kept pending till the year 2015. The appellant filed writ petition which has been disposed off vide order dated 24.11.2015 directing the appellate authority to decide the Appeal. The Appellate authority has dismissed the Appeal holding that proper enquiry has been made by the authority before imposing such 3 punishment, thereby confirmed the imposed punishment order vide order dated 25.01.2016. The appellant filed Writ Petition challenging both the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by respondent No.2 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.03.2025. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Enquiry OfÏcer has recorded the findings against the material evidence available on record, it has wrongly been confirmed by the appellate authority and learned Single Judge also failed to consider it properly. She further submits that the Enquiry OfÏcer has initiated the proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966 though for imposition of minor penalty the Rule 16 is applicable. Therefore, the entire departmental enquiry would be vitiated as it violates the procedural law, but the appellate authority as well as learned Single Judge has failed to consider it properly. She also submits that the Appellant/Petitioner has not been provided material documents on which imposed allegation was made and ground of reply submitted by him has also not been considered by the enquiry ofÏcer, thereby proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the Appellant/Petitioner, but the appellate authority and learned Single Judge also failed to consider this important point properly. She contended that the reasoned order as enumerated under Rule 27 of CCA, Rules, 1966 has not been passed by the appellate authority and it has also not been considered properly by learned Single Judge. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for 4 the respondents/State opposes the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which warrants on interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant, who was employed as Rural Agriculture Extension OfÏcer at Block-Nawagarh, had committed gross irregularities under the scheme known as "Vristhi Chhaya Yojna Antargat", as he failed to forward the relevant papers of one farmer Hitendra Banjare, owing to which, the tubewell could not be sanctioned by the State Government to the said farmer. It appears further that in view of the irregularities committed by the appellant, he was placed under suspension by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg, vide order dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure R/1) and thereafter, within a period of 45 days, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 07.10.2009, in which, the answer was sought from him. It appears further that the charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 15.10.2009 and, in response to which, he has submitted his reply/defence on 22.10.2009. Learned Single Judge further observed that the Deputy Director, Agriculture, who was the disciplinary authority, has afforded the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 19.11.2009, and thereafter also, on 24.11.2009 and, on perusal of the reply, as was submitted by the appellant along with the 5 statement, the same was found to be contradictory and thereupon a departmental enquiry was constituted, where, the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg was appointed as Enquiry OfÏcer on 16.12.2009 vide Annexure R/4. It is to be seen further that in the alleged departmental enquiry, proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and after due consideration of the said enquiry, the enquiry report dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure R/5) was presented, where the charges leveled against the appellant were found to be proved and, an intimation along with the alleged inquiry report was supplied to him with a direction that if the appellant was desirous of submitting any response/representation in relation to the conclusion arrived at in the departmental enquiry, the same should be furnished within a period of seven days and furthermore, if he wanted an opportunity of personal hearing, then also, an intimation to that effect be conveyed. Learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant has submitted his reply on 13.01.2011 (Annexure R/8) and also requested for the personal hearing and after considering his said prayer, the same was afforded to him and was also heard in person on 26.02.2011. It appears further that after considering the reply, as was submitted by the appellant, an order was passed on 23.06.2010 (Annexure R/9), in which, the defence taken-up by the appellant was not found to be satisfactory and thereafter, the final show-cause notices were issued on 10.08.2010 (Annexure R/6) and 05.01.2011 (Annexure R/7) and, in response to it, the appellant has submitted his reply on 17.01.2011 (Annexure R/8) and, after due consideration of his reply, an order dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure P/2) was passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg and the same 6 was afÏrmed further by the respondent No.2-The Director, Department of Agriculture, Directorate, Raipur, vide its order impugned dated 25.01.2017 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal preferred by him, was dismissed. He held that after providing sufÏcient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the order impugned dated 25.01.2017 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the respondent No.2- The Director, Department of Agriculture, Directorate, Raipur, afÏrming the order dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg, and had dismissed the writ petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru ) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu