Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5981 of 2019 R.K. Dhruv S/o Late Shri Kuwar Singh Dhruv Aged About 51 Years Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Magarlodh, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Development Commissioner Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29.8.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order dated 10.7.2019 and Enquiry report dated 14.03.2012 and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner back on his post with arrears of salary. 10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court.” BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.01 14:35:25 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioner was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Magarlodh, Dhamtari. Earlier he was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Koilibeda, Kanker in the year 2007 and during that period allegation was levelled against him with regard to financial irregularities and departmental enquiry was initiated against him, in which, the petitioner was held guilty and vide impugned Order dated 10.7.2019, he has been inflicted penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ under Rule 10(8) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules 1966’), against which, the petitioner has preferred instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, malafide and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He would further submit that the impugned order has been passed without complying the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules 1966, as opinion sought for by respondent No.1 has not been supplied to the petitioner prior to passing of impugned order. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and relief as sought for by the petitioner may be granted. 4. State has filed reply. Learned counsel for the State referring to its reply would submit that after supply of copy of departmental enquiry report vide Annexure-P/2, the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing and thereafter the impugned order of dismissal from service of the petitioner has been passed. However, he submits that as per the record of the departmental enquiry proceedings, opinion sought for from the Public Service Commission has not been supplied to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Rule 32 of the Rules 1966 reads thus:- 3 “32. Supply of copy of Commission’s advice.- Whenever the Commission is consulted as provided in these rules, a copy of the advice by the commission and where such advice has not been accepted, also a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance, shall be furnished to the Government servant concerned along with a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making the order.” 7. Perusal of aforesaid Rules specifically show that if the Public Service Commission is consulted and advice is sought for, then even after its acceptance or non-acceptance, copy of the same shall be furnished to the Government servant. 8. This view also get support from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of KP Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WA No.509/2015, in which the Hon’ble Division Bench observed in para 6 & 7 as under:- “6. The view taken by us finds support from Rule 32 which reads as follows:- “32. Supply of copy of commission's advice.- Whenever the Commission is consulted as provided in these rules, a copy of the advice by the Commission, and where such advice had not been accepted also a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance, shall be furnished to the Government servant concerned alongwith a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making the order.” 4 The pleadings in paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit ignoring Rule 32 are therefore completely erroneous and unsustainable. 7. If consultation was held with the Commission and the recommendation of the Commission is adhered to by the Government to the prejudice of the employee, furnishing of a copy of the recommendation with opportunity of defence by supply of a copy of the recommendation before punishment was considered in (2014) 7 SCC 340 (Union of India v. R.P Singh) observing as follows :- “12…….. The said decision in S.N. Narula case is an authority for the proposition that the advice of UPSC, if sought and accepted, the same, regard being had to the principles of natural justice, is to be communicated before imposition of punishment. 13……………After so stating the two-Judge Bench opined that when the disciplinary authority does not rely on the report of UPSC then it is not necessary to supply the same to the employee concerned. However, when it is relied upon then the copy of the same may be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise, there would be violation of the principles of natural justice. To arrive at the said conclusion, reliance was placed upon the decision in S.N. Narula case.” 9. Thus, if the disciplinary authority relied on the opinion of the Public Service Commission in the case, it is necessary to supply copy of the opinion to the delinquent employee before imposing penalty to comply with the principle of natural justice. Failure to do so would be violation of this 5 principle. For ensuring the employee a fair hearing, opportunity should be afforded to him to rebut the evidence available against him. 10. In the instant case, it is evident from the impugned order Annexure-P/1 that opinion of the Public Service Commission was sought and respondent No.1 has relied in that opinion, but copy of the opinion of the Public Service Commission was not supplied to the petitioner before passing impugned order of his dismissal from service. Therefore, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition on this ground alone. 11. Consequently, order of punishment dated 10.7.2019 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State authorities to proceed afresh from the stage that they referred the matter to the Public Service Commission for consultation and taking a fresh decision in accordance with law after compliance with Rule 32 of Rules 1966. 12.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and complete non-compliance with a statutory provision, the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal become irrelevant. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini