Ku. Augustina Xalxo vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1826 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                              NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Writ Petition (S) No.6063 of 2010

                                Order reserved on: 5-8-2021

                              Order delivered on: 17-8-2021

                                     Ku. Augustina Xalxo

                                                  Versus

                         State of Chhattisgarh and three others

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

For Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Additional Advocate General.

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C.A.V. Order (Through Video Conferencing)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition calling in question legality,

validity and correctness of order dated 29-7-2010 by which the

disciplinary authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect and also directed the petitioner to

pay ₹ 1,88,330/- to the concerned person. The writ petition has

principally been filed on the ground that before passing the order

impugned, neither copy of inquiry report was served to the petitioner

nor show cause notice was issued calling upon his reply, as such, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside in line with the judgment

rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Managing Director,

ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others1.

2. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his

submission reiterated the above-stated ground relying upon B.

Karunakar's case (supra).

1 (1993) 4 SCC 727

3. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the State / respondents, would submit that the petitioner has to plead

and establish the fact of prejudice on the alleged non-furnishing of the

copy of inquiry report which has not been pleaded and established by

the petitioner.

4. Let the petitioner file an affidavit within three weeks from today clearly

indicating the prejudice on account of alleged non-supply of inquiry

report.

5. List after three weeks.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma