Chattisgarh High Court

S.K.Anant vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 6 July, 2021

                                     1

                                                                           NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                           WPS No. 4136 of 2013
   Brijendra Sharma, S/o Late Shri A.K. Sharma, Aged
   about     43     years,     R/o       A1,   Srijee      Vihar,     Dubey
   Colony,        Police     Station      Mova,    Mova,      Tahsil       and
   Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                           Petitioner

                                    Versus

1. State     of     Chhattisgarh,          through      the       Secretary,
   Department       of     Public     Health    and     Family      Welfare,
   Mahanadi         Bhawan,          Mantralaya,           Naya      Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh.

2. Director, Medical Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                         Respondents

WPS No. 4112 of 2013 Mahesh Kumar Dheewar, S/o Late Siya Ram Dheewar, Aged about 51 years, Working on the post of Administrative Officer, Government Physiotherapy College, Raipur, R/o H6, Officer Colony, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Police Station Devendra Nagar, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Medical Education, Old Nurses House, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Under Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Respondents

WPS No. 4114 of 2013 Sundaresan E., S/o Late G. Paramu, Aged about 49 years, Working on the post of Administrative Officer, CIMS, Bilaspur, R/o Quarter No. 358, Behind Wadi, Shivghat, Old Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Medical Education, Old Nurses House, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Under Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Respondents

WPS No. 4354 of 2013 S.K. Anant, S/o Late Samaru Ram, Aged about 53 years, Administrative Officer, Government Dental College, Raipur, R/o House No. B003, Kuber Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Mowa Pandri, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Medical Education, Old Nurses House, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Under Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A. For Respondent 4/CGPSC : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)

06/07/2021

1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners

call in question the impugned order dated

27/11/2013 (Annexure P/1) by which the State

Government directed the Director, Medical Education

to cancel the promotion given to the petitioners on

the post of 'Office Superintendent' as their

appointment by promotion was not done in accordance

with law.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were

promoted on the post of 'Office Superintendent' in

200708 and thereafter, they have further been

promoted on the post of 'Administrative Officer' by

order dated 18/07/2011 (Annexure P/9) and since

then they have been working on the said post of

'Administrative Officer', but on the complaint of

the intervenor namely S.K. Sharma, the State

Government has passed an order for cancelling

petitioners' promotion on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' which is in violation of principles

of natural justice as neither any departmental

enquiry has been conducted nor any reasonable

opportunity of defending themselves has been

granted to the petitioners to establish that they

have been appointed and promoted strictly in

accordance with law.

3. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr.

Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners,

would submit that the order passed by the State

Government (Annexure P/1) directing the Director,

Medical Education to cancel the promotion granted

to the petitioners on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' is absolutely without jurisdiction

of law as they were working on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' for a long time and thereafter,

they have also been promoted on the post of

'Administrative Officer'. Further the promotion

granted to the petitioners on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' could not have been cancelled

without holding any departmental enquiry or without

even affording a minimum opportunity of hearing to

the petitioners. As such, the impugned order

deserves to be set aside. They would rely upon the

decision rendered by this Court in the matter of

Murlidhar Gautam v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) and

Others1 to buttress their submission.

4. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Advocate General,

and Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for the

1 2008 (3) CGLJ 288

intervenor, would support the impugned order passed

by the State Government and would submit that the

instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

6. It is not in dispute that petitioners have been

promoted on the post of 'Office Superintendent'

long back in 200708 and thereafter, they have

further been promoted on the post of

'Administrative Officer' by order dated 18/07/2011

and they are working on the said post since long.

It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the

complaint filed by the intervenor S.K. Sharma,

proceeding with regard to cancellation of

petitioners' promotion has been initiated beyond

the back of the petitioners and thereafter, the

State Government has taken the impugned decision of

cancelling the promotion granted to the petitioners

on the post of 'Office Superintendent' and that

too, without holding any departmental enquiry or

without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to

defend themselves.

7. In the matter of Murlidhar (supra), this Court has

held as under in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 :

"8. It is evident that the promotion under order dated 25.3.1989 (Annexure A/2) was passed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental Promotion Committee, it appears, had examined all the aspects of the matter before recommending the name of petitioner for promotion, along with 57 other persons. The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the State that no show cause notice was required to be issued, is noticed to be rejected on the simple ground that no order which is punitive in nature and visits with civil consequences, causing prejudice to the person concerned can be passed without following the principles of natural justice.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & Others2 held as under : "The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter."

10. This Court in the matter of Laxman Prasad Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara (Writ Petition No. 2800 of 1995), which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 17 th April, 2006, held that no punitive order can be passed 2 AIR 1994 SC 2480

without affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, who is affected prejudicially by the impugned order."

8. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light

of the principle of law laid down by this Court in

Murlidhar (supra), it is quite vivid that

petitioners were promoted on the post of 'Office

Superintendent' in 200708 and thereafter, they

have further been promoted on the post of

'Administrative Officer' by order dated 18/07/2011,

but on the complaint made by the intervenor namely

S.K. Sharma, without subjecting the petitioners to

departmental enquiry and without even providing a

reasonable opportunity to them to defend