Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.31 18:08:41 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6914 of 2024 • Smt. Kishori Devi Wd/o Late Shri Radheshyam Tiwari, Aged About 82 Years R/o Khandelwal Colony, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, P.S.-Rakhi, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarters, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, P.S.-Rakhi, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Durg Range, District-Durg (C.G.) 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Juhi Anguria, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 20/01/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner is widow of Late Radheshyam Tiwari, who was working as Constable in the Police Station at Manpur District – Rajnandgaon. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging 2 the impugned appellate order, dated 03.03.2015 passed by the respondent no.03. That the late husband of the petitioner was working as Constable in the Police Station at Manpur, District Rajnandgaon. On 17.09.1996, the late husband of the petitioner was on duty from 9:00 am till 6:00 pm thereafter, he went back to his home after completion of his duty. At midnight, the naxalites attacked the police station and the late husband of the petitioner was not on duty. But a departmental enquiry was commenced on 23.11.1996 against the late husband of the petitioner and on the basis of the said departmental enquiry, and a major penalty of dismissal imposed upon him. He preferred an appeal to challenge the dismissal but the appeal was rejected hence, the late husband of the petitioner had preferred O.A. No. 2208/1999 along with similar situated employees before the SAT but on 31.07.2003, the petitioner was superannuated from his service, subsequently, the same O.A. was transferred to this Hon'ble Court and registered as W.P.[S]. No. 1825/2005 but
Decision
during the pendency of the writ petition, the late husband of the petitioner died on 17.07.2010 and the legal heirs ie. the petitioner herein and her two sons were arrayed as party in the above writ petition. Later, the writ petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the late husband petitioner. The appellate authority reinstated the similar situated employees and the punishment was reduced but the period from punishment dt. 3 24.10.1997 to the date of reinstatement/joining will to be treated as no work no pay and their service period will be treated accordingly. Thereafter, the above similar situated employees challenged the impugned order in the writ petition bearing W.P.[S] No. 1227/2016 & 249/2017, in which the Hon'ble Court has pleased to set-aside the impugned order, dt. 03.03.2015 [Annexure P-1] to the extent of non-grant of back wages and the substituted major penalty of stoppage of one increment in the basic pay with non-cumulative effect and directed the respondent authorities for reinstatement of petitioners therein with back wages but the petitioner, being ignorant of law, could not file the writ petition earlier, therefore, the petitioner submits this writ petition challenging the impugned appellate order, in the view of the order passed in the matter of similarly situated employees and seeking relief and appropriate direction to the respondent authorities in the interest of justice. 3. By way of this petition the petitioner most humbly prays for following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the matter. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order, dated 03.03.2015 [Annexure-P/1] and to allow the back wages from 1997 up to retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.07.2003. 10.3 That, The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the arrears and pension of service of the late husband of the petitioner along with the other 4 consequential benefits. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow any other relief as deem fit and proper. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner along with other constables were posted at Manpur Police Station 24.10.1997, Naxalites attacked the Police Station and looted guns. Consequently, the petitioner and other police officials namely Surendra Ramteke, Vijay Singh, Ram Kumar, Subhash Marabi, Ramakant, Tribhuvan on Das and Radheshyam were dismissed from service. Against their dismissal, departmental appeal was filed before Inspector General of Police, Balaghat and the appeal was rejected on 30.03.1999 which led to filing Original Application No.2269/1999 in Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal wherein the appellate order dated 30.03.1999 was under challenge. In the meanwhile, since the SAT was abolished, the matter was transferred to the High Court and the OA preferred by the petitioner was converted as WP(S) No.1830/2005, Eventually the said matters came to be decided by this Court on 08th September, 2014 whereby it has been held that the appellate order does not contain any reasons nor it shows compliance of statutory requirement, as such, remanded the case to the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal afresh. Pursuant to the order dated 08.09.2014, the petitioners filed representation before the Inspector General of Police, Durg Area, to hear the appeal afresh. The said appeal was decided by order dated 03.03.2015 whereby the petitioners were directed to 5 be reinstated but without back wages and further the order imposing major punishment of termination was reduced to major penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year with non-cumulative effect and no back wages were granted for such period on the formula of 'no work no pay". 5. Being aggrieved, similarly situated persons have filed WPS No.1227 of 2016 (Surendra Ramteke & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) wherein the order passed by the appellate authority dated 03.03.2015 was under challenge and this Court by order dated 12.08.2024 was pleased to allow the petition holding that the other set of employees who were parties to the same incident were reinstated by order of SAT with back-wages and when th charges arise from the same incident and allegations are almost identical, doctrine of equality would apply in imposing punishment and similarly placed co-delinquents cannot be visited with different punishment and as such set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2015 passed in departmental appeal and accordingly the petitioners therein were directed to be reinstated with back wages. 6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the fact and submits that the petitioner's case was left out while adjudicating WPS No.1227 of 2016. 7. In view of the above submissions, the present petition is disposed of in similar line applying the doctrine of equality and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with 6 back wages till his retirement as was ordered in case other persons who were involved in the same incident. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 to the extent of non-grant of back wages and the substituted major penalty of stoppage of one increment in the basic pay with non-cumulative effect is set aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE vaishali