Rajesh Singh Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1513 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                              NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Writ Petition (S) No.776 of 2010

                               Order reserved on: 26-7-2021

                               Order delivered on: 2-8-2021

        Rajesh Singh Shrivastava, S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh, aged about 40
        years, R/o H-8, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                                  Versus

    1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs,
       D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur.

    2. Directorate of Prosecution, Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                               ---- Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C.A.V. Order

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video

conferencing.

2. The petitioner calls in question the impugned order Annexure P-2

dated 15-9-2009 by which the appellate authority has confirmed the

order dated 12-2-2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the disciplinary

authority inflicting major punishment of reduction to lower stage in the

time scale of pay and also directing for stoppage of three annual

increments with cumulative effect branding the same as arbitrary and

that it amounts to imposition of two major penalties at one go and

further amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner, as such, it is

liable to be set aside.

3. Return has been filed by the State / respondents supporting the orders

impugned stating inter alia that the penalty imposed upon the

petitioner is one and same prescribed under Rule 10(v) of the

Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1966 (for short, 'the Rules of 1966') and as such, the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Aditya Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

would submit that the appellate authority has not followed the Rules of

1966 while dismissing the appeal and further, reduction of lower stage

in the time scale of pay for a specified time and stoppage of three

increments with cumulative effect also amounts to major punishment

in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter

of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1 and further relied upon the

decision of the M.P. High Court in the matter of K.R. Shankara Kaimal

v. State of M.P.2. As such, the order of the appellate authority

deserves to be set aside.

5. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for

the State / respondents, would support the impugned orders and

would submit that only one penalty has been imposed upon the

petitioner i.e. reduction of lower stage in the time scale of pay for a

specified time within the meaning of Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966,

no two major penalties have been inflicted upon the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

7. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1966 provides as under:-

"27. Consideration of appeal.-(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority 1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 2 1995 MPLJ (N) 54

shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 9 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.

(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 10 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider,-

(a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non- compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice;

(b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the records; and

(c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, and pass orders-

(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case...."

8. It is well settled position of law that the appellate authority in

disciplinary proceeding acts in quasi-judicial capacity and order

passed has to be reasoned one and showing application of mind to

the question raised by the appellant and if it is not done, the appellate

order is vitiated. (See Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and

others v. Madhusudhan Rao3).

9. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by observing that

an appellate authority by deciding statutory appeal is not only required

to give hearing to the Government servant, but pass a reasoned order

dealing with the contention raised in the appeal. (See Deokinandan

3 (2008) 3 SCC 469

Sharma v. Union of India and others4).

10. Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the disciplinary

authority it may not be speaking order, but the authority passing the

same must show that there had been proper application of mind in

compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction

particularly when the rules required application of mind on several

factors and several contentions had been raised and he was bound to

assign reasons so as to enable the Court reviewing its decision to

ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors

which the rule required to do. (See Narinder Mohan Arya v. United

India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others5).

11. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid

provision and the judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that appeal

preferred by the petitioner has not been considered by the appellate

authority in the light of clause (a) to (c) of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of

1966 and dismissed the appeal by unreasoned and non-speaking

order on 15-9-2009, which ought to have been considered by the

appellate authority in the light of clause (a) to (c) of Rule 27(2) of the

Rules of 1966.

12. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the

impugned order dated 15-9-2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the

appellate authority is hereby set-aside. The appeal filed by the

petitioner herein is restored to the file of the appellate authority. The

appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner

in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1966 within 60 days

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and will decide the

same after hearing the petitioner and other side and pass a reasoned 4 (2001) 5 SCC 340 5 (2006) 4 SCC 713

and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is

at liberty to file additional submission before the appellate authority.

13.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No

order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma