1 - A.K. Soni S/o Late K.P. Soni, Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted v. 1 - Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, A Statutory Authority Constituted Under Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7730 of 2023 1 - A.K. Soni S/o Late K.P. Soni, Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Joint Director, Industrial Training Institute, Regional Office, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, A Statutory Authority Constituted Under Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam Through Its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Near Kali Badi, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Resp. No. 1 : : :
Legal Reasoning
43/2014. It is well settled that the Lok Aayog is a purely recommendatory body; however, in the present matter, no final recommendation was made against the petitioner prior to the departmental decision to initiate an inquiry. The order dated 20.09.2018, which references the order sheet of 10.09.2014, clearly indicates that despite the absence of any conclusive recommendation from the Lok Aayog, the department proceeded to institute a departmental inquiry, thereby contravening the provisions of the Act. Further, the issuance of the first show cause notice to the petitioner on 18.09.2015, long after the Lok Aayog purportedly recorded its opinion on 10.09.2014 that misconduct was established, is a glaring violation of the principles of natural justice. The premature conclusion of Lok Aayog of guilt prior to affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond is manifestly illegal and against the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Adhiniyam, 2002. Moreover, the charge sheet dated 18.03.2016 against the petitioner also relies on the 5 recommendation dated 10.09.2014, which itself is flawed. It is settled law that the role of Lok Aayog under Section 11(3) of the Act is limited to making recommendations only after conducting a proper inquiry and upon establishment of the complaint. In the instant case, the Lok Aayog failed to communicate any reasoned recommendation or evidence to the competent authority as required, thereby breaching the statutory mandate. The order dated 10.09.2014 clearly shows that the Lok Aayog has directed the initiation of departmental inquiry without any supporting evidence or report, which is contrary to the legal position and amounts to an act bad in law from the very inception. This usurpation of powers beyond its recommendatory jurisdiction is impermissible and vitiates the entire proceedings. Additionally, the order sheet dated 30.10.2018 demonstrates that the Lok Aayog closed the matter on the ground that a departmental inquiry had already been instituted, again without following the due process prescribed under the Act. This is a clear case where the mandatory procedural safeguards under the Adhiniyam, 2002 have been neglected. Finally, the issue raised in the present writ petition has been authoritatively decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2020 dated 24.07.2023, wherein the recommendation dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Lok Aayog was quashed. In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the entire departmental inquiry initiated based on the flawed recommendation of the Lok Aayog is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit the contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived and without merit. The Lok Aayog, under the Adhiniyam, 2002, functions as a recommendatory body tasked with conducting inquiries into complaints relating to irregularities in public service recruitment and other matters. In Complaint Case No. 43/2014, the Lok Aayog conducted a 6 thorough inquiry into allegations of irregularities in recruitment of training officers and submitted its findings and recommendations to the competent authority. It is clarified that the recommendations of Lok Aayog are advisory in nature and do not amount to binding orders directing the initiation of departmental inquiries. The department, upon receipt of report of Lok Aayog, exercised its independent statutory authority to initiate a departmental inquiry, following issuance of appropriate show cause notices and charge sheets to the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, thereby ensuring full compliance with the principles of natural justice. The assertion that the Lok Aayog formed an opinion of misconduct prior to issuance of the show cause notice and thereby violated natural justice is factually and legally incorrect. The role of Lok Aayog is to investigate and recommend, and the departmental proceedings are separate and independent actions taken by the competent authority. The procedural safeguards under the Act, 2002 were duly followed at every stage. Moreover, the plea that the Lok Aayog failed to communicate its findings and evidence to the competent authority is unfounded, as the inquiry report and recommendation dated 10.09.2014 clearly reflect the findings of the Lok Aayog, which were duly considered by the department. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused documents annexed along with the record. 6. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2020, decided on 24.07.2023, wherein this Court has categorically held that: “20. Even otherwise, under the scheme of the Act of 2002, the function of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog is only advisory in nature and recommendatory in character. The scheme of the Act of 2002 qua the power and jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog was examined by one of us (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) in the matter of S.P.R. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others13 in which it has 7 been held that duty and function of the Lok Aayog under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act of 2002 is only recommendatory in nature and the Lok Aayog cannot pass order directing departmental inquiry and consequent recovery against the delinquent Government servant…..” 7. The present case is squarely covered by the above ruling. A perusal of the order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) demonstrates that the Lok Aayog not only recorded a conclusive finding that misconduct had been proved against the petitioner but also proceeded to direct the State Government to initiate departmental inquiry and to report back within a stipulated time. Such a directive clearly transgresses the limited recommendatory domain conferred upon the Lok Aayog under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002. 8. Furthermore, the records reveal that the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing before the Lok Aayog reached its conclusions. No evidence was recorded in his presence, nor was he summoned for any personal hearing prior to the alleged finding of misconduct. This is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards prescribed under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Adhiniyam. Consequently, the departmental action initiated against the petitioner, which is rooted in and solely reliant upon the order dated 10.09.2014, is also vitiated by illegality and non-compliance with statutory procedure. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Lok Aayog exceeded its jurisdiction in recording a finding of proved misconduct and in issuing a direction for initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Such action is beyond the statutory remit of the Lok Aayog and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in W.A. No. 427 of 2020. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Lok Aayog in Case No. 43/2014 is hereby quashed, being illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequentially, all further proceedings, including the 8 departmental charge sheet dated 18.03.2016 and the decision dated 20.09.2018 to initiate departmental inquiry, which are predicated solely upon the impugned recommendation, are also liable to be set aside and are accordingly quashed.
Arguments
Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate Mr. Ajay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advoate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The present writ petition is being preferred by the petitioner against respondent No.1 for initiating and conducting an inquiry without following the mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice under the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002. Further, the petitioner challenges the departmental action based on flawed and uncommunicated recommendations of the Lok Aayog, causing grave prejudice to his rights. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the entire record of Case Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 No. 43/2014 from the Lok Aayog. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction quashing/setting aside the entire proceeding in Case No. 43/2014 registered at Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Raipur, specific quashment is sought for order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) and further be pleased to quash the proceedings based on th recommendation dated 10.09.2014. 10.3. That the Hon'ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) a may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the instant petition challenges the actions of respondent No. 1, which culminated in the initiation of a departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed as Principal Class-I in the year 1995 with the department under respondent No. 2 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently, in the year 2000, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director, a position in which he continues to officiate to this date. Presently, the petitioner is posted as Joint Director in the Directorate of Employment and Training, Bilaspur Zone. In 2010, the department conducted a State-level recruitment process for the appointment of various posts, including Training Officer Class-3. This recruitment exercise was carried out strictly in accordance with the law, following the issuance of a proper advertisement. After due process, several candidates were appointed. Thereafter, on a complaint lodged by one Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, a case bearing No. 43/2014 was registered before the Lok Aayog on 10.09.2014. The Learned Pramukh Lok Ayukt, in an order sheet dated the same day, recorded a finding of misconduct against the petitioner, who was then Joint Director, along with the then Director and other persons involved in the recruitment process. The Lok Aayog observed that misconduct was proved against these officers and recommended that departmental action be initiated at the Government level in accordance with 3 the rules, with a direction to inform the commission of the action taken within three months. Subsequent to the order sheet, on 18.09.2015, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner seeking an explanation for the alleged irregularities in the recruitment process, including the appointment of ineligible candidates and committing corruption. The notice referenced the complaint filed by Kamlesh Kumar Sahu and stated that the petitioner was posted as Joint Director during the interview process. The petitioner responded to the Show Cause Notice by way of a detailed reply dated 29.09.2015. Prior to issuance of this single notice, the petitioner was never summoned by the Lok Aayog nor granted any opportunity of personal hearing to present his case. No further notices or summons were issued to the petitioner during the entire proceedings before the Lok Aayog. Thereafter, on 30.09.2015, the Lok Aayog recorded an order sheet directing the petitioner to produce details of movable and immovable properties owned by him, his wife, children, and other family members. The petitioner complied with this direction and submitted a comprehensive response on 13.10.2015, detailing the properties as sought. Surprisingly, on 28.10.2015, the Lok Aayog issued another notice (Letter No. 3599/छ.ग.लो.आ/शि(cid:7)का. /43/2014/2015) seeking further extensive details, including information about all family members, permanent residential addresses, details of in-laws’ houses, bank account numbers, PAN card numbers, and any additional income sources of family members. The relevant portion of this letter specifically demanded such details be furnished by 20.11.2015. In response, the petitioner furnished a detailed reply on 18.11.2015, providing all the information requested, including particulars of family members, bank accounts, PAN cards, and other relevant details. Despite these submissions, the matter before the Lok Aayog stagnated and was effectively put in cold storage for almost two years, during which no further orders were passed, no summons issued, and no evidence was recorded from the petitioner or any other witness. Meanwhile, 4 on 18.03.2016, the State Government issued a departmental charge sheet against the petitioner, relying upon the note sheet dated 10.09.2014, which was treated as a recommendation from the Lok Aayog. The charge sheet invoked the complaint registered as Case No. 43/2014 and made formal allegations against the petitioner. After more than two years, on 20.09.2018, the State Government (respondent No. 2) took a formal decision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the petitioner and others, referencing the earlier note sheet dated 10.09.2014. The order dated 20.09.2018 specifically acknowledged the registration of Case No. 43/2014 concerning allegations of irregularities in the recruitment of 723 Training Officers under the Directorate of Employment and Training and the submission of an investigation report on 10.09.2014. The petitioner challenges the entire process and proceedings before the Lok Aayog and the subsequent departmental inquiry. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the mandate of the Adhiniyam, 2002 has not been adhered to by the Lok Aayog in Complaint Case No.
Decision
10. The writ petition is hereby allowed. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE