Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.26 17:00:58 +0530 2025:CGHC:13850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8484 of 2023 1 - J.S. Meravi (Jhankar Singh Meravi) S/o Late Dubey Singh Meravi Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted And Working As Rural Agriculture Extension OfÏcer, Block- Chhuikhandan, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Department Of Agriculture, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Block-2, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director/ Additional Director/ Joint Director Department Of Agriculture, 2 Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Block-2, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Director Agriculture, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Sub- Divisional Agriculture OfÏcer Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 22.03.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 09.04.2020 (Annexure P/3), by which the respondent No. 5 Sub-Divisional Agriculture OfÏcer has passed an order for recovery of salary amount Rs. 9,78,040/- (in 59 installments of Rs. 16,300 and 1 installment of Rs. 16,340/-) which was paid to the petitioner for the period of study leave taken by the petitioner during the period of education of Agriculture Graduation (B.Sc. Agriculture). The petitioner is also questioning the communication dated 20.06.2023 issued by the respondent no. 1, by which the respondent no. 1 has confirmed the order dated 09.04.2020. 2. The brief fact of the case is that during the posting of petitioner as 3 Rural Agriculture Extension OfÏcer, vide letter/order dated- 30.07.2015 permission has been granted to petitioner for admission in syllabus of Agriculture Graduation (B.Sc. Agriculture) on department lavel. Thereafter, the petitioner taken admission in syllabus of Agriculture Graduation (B.Sc. Agriculture) in academic session 2015-16 in 1 year, but he declared fail then in academic session 2016-17 he had studied as repeater student of 1st year and he again declared fail then he has been relieved from college as he can't be continued. Thereafter, the petitioner joined at his place of posting and performing duties to the best of his ability, sincerity and honesty, and there is no complaint etc. against the petitioner in his entire service career. After lapse of period of 3 years suddenly, vide order dated-09.04.2020 the respondent no.5 directed to recovery of salary amount of Rs. 9,78,040/- (in 59 installment of Rs. 16,300/- and installment of Rs. 16,340/-) paid to the petitioner during the period of education of Agriculture Graduation (B.Sc. Agriculture). Against the order dated-09.04.2020 the petitioner approached before the respondent no.2, and it was stayed vide order dated- 07.06.2021, but later on vide letter dated-20.06.2023 the respondent no.1 confirmed the order dated-09.04.2020 and also directed to recovery from petitioner shall be continued as per order dated- 09.04.2020. The order impugned passed by respondent no.5 in view of Rule 50(1) (एक) and sub-rule 3 of rule 43 of C.G. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, without issuing any show cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only in 4 mechanical and arbitrary manner with malafide intention and harassing the petitioner and thus the order and letter impugned are illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring (Annexure P/3) submits that the Dean Indira Gandhi Agriculture University issued a certificate to the Sub-Divisional Agircultural OfÏcer Khairagarh on 10.08.2017 certifying that the petitioner has continued his education during the Session 2016-17, however as the petitioner failed in 12 subjects the petitioner discontinued from the said study from the period 2017-18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner submitted the certificate in the form of communication dated 10.08.2017, it is very clear that the petitioner has continued his study for which the leave was sanctioned for the session 2015-16 and 2016-17 and once he has continued his study for two academic session the impugned order for recovery of salary paid to the petitioner during the period of study of B.Sc. Agriculture is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Section 50 (1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Leave) Rules 2010 and Section 43 (3) of the said Rule. Learned counsel submits that the provision of Rule 43(3) prescribe that on completion of the course of study, the Government servant shall submit to the authority which granted him the study leave, the certificate of examination passed or special course of study undertaken, indicating the date of commencement and termination of the course with the remarks, if any, of the authority in charge of the course of study, hence once the petitioner submitted the communication dated 10.08.2017, it is presumed that 5 the petitioner has submitted the course completion certificate and hence the Rule 50 (1) will not come in the way and the recovery of the salary during the period of education/study is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is misconceived and being devoid of merit, it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 09.04.2020 (Annexure P/3) has been passed on the ground that the petitioner who was posted as Rural Agriculture Extension OfÏcer, Block Chhuikhadan was given said leave for pursuing B.Sc Agriculture course at Agriculture College, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). The petitioner studied in the said college during the period of 11.08.2015 to 24.08.2017 for the period of two years and he was continuously declared fail in both the years and consequently he was not allowed to continue the studies for 3rd time and therefore, the petitioner again gave his joining in the department on 25.08.2017. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that as per rule 50(1)(i) and rule 43(3) the petitioner has failed to complete course of studies and thus, he has been unable to furnish the service as required under sub rule (3) of rule 43 and therefore he is required to return the total amount of salary and other expenses incurred by the government. Hence, the impugned order has been passed for recovery of Rs. 9,78,040/- in 60 installment. The same is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 6 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as provision of Rule 50(1) and 50 (1)(i) and Rule 43 (3). 6. The Rule 50 (1)(i) and rule 43 (3) are reproduced here as under:- “50. Resignation or retirement after study leave or non-completion of course of study - (1) If a Government servant resigns or retires from service or otherwise quits service without returning to duty after a period of study leave or within a period of three years after such return to duty or fails to complete the course of study and is thus unable to furnish the certificate as required under sub-rule (3) of rule 43 he shall be required to return- (i) the actual amount of leave salary, cost of fees, travelling and other expenses, if any, incurred by the Government; and…………” ** ** “ 43. Sanction of study leave — ** ** ** ** ** ** (3) On completion of the course of study, the Government servant shall submit to the authority which granted him the study leave, the certificate of examination passed or special course of study undertaken, indicating the date of commencement and termination of the course with the remarks, if any, of the authority in charge of the course of study.” 7. It is not in dispute that the respondents have granted study leave to 7 the petitioner and the petitioner pursued his study of B.Sc. Agriculture course at Agriculture college Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon for the period 11.08.2015 to 24.08.2027 for the period of two year, however he continuously declared fail in 12 subjects and for which he was not allowed to continue the study for 3 academic session and for which the petitioner gave his joining in the department on 25.08.2017. It appears from the certificate/communication issued by the Dean of the Agriculture University to the Sub-Divisional Agriculture OfÏcer Khairagarh dated 10.08.2017 that the Dean has certified that the petitioner has not completed the course and failed in 12 subjects in two academic sessions and for which he was not permitted to continue the study for the third academic year. Rule 50 (1)(i) prescribes that If a Government servant fails to complete the course of study and unable to furnish the certificate as required under sub-rule (3) of rule 43 he shall be required to return- (i) the actual amount of leave salary to the State Government. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the rule 43(3) should be read along with 50(1)(i) is concerned, the rule 43(3) also very specific that on completion of the course of study, the government servant shall submit to the authority which granted him the study leave, the certificate of examination passed passed or special course undertaken, indicating the date of commencement and termination of the course, however, in the present case the petitioner has not completed the course as he failed in 12 subjects and because of failure in 12 8 subject in the two academic years he was discontinued for the third academic session and as the petitioner has not completed the course of study itself and failed to complete the course for which the leave was granted, the impugned order has rightly been passed by the respondent authority by exercising the power under rule 50 (1)(i) as well as read with rule 43(3) and there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent.
Decision
8. Hence the writ petition sans merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib