B.P. Tripathi vs State Of C.G. And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 377 Chatt

                          1

                                                  NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                WPS No.3994 of 2010

   B. P. Tripathi, S/o Late Shri Bare Lal
    Tripathi, aged about 57 years, Occupation
    Service posted as Forest Ranger, Range Office
    Ambikapur, District Sarguja, R/o Forest Colony
    Near Gauri Temple, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja,
    C.G.

                                      ­­­­ Petitioner

                       Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Forest
     Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District
     Raipur (C.G.)

  2. The    Under     Secretary,   Government    of
     Chhattisgarh, Forest Department, Mantralaya at
     D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

  3. The Principle Chief Conservator of Forest,
     Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

  4. The Conservator of Forest,       Raipur   Circle,
     Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

  5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division,
     Raipur (C.G.)

                                      ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Adv. For Respondent­State Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. AG

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

17/06/2021

1. The proceedings of the matter have been taken

up through Video Conferencing.

2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition is

challenging the legality, validity and the

propriety of the orders dated 31.07.2009

(Annexure­P/1) and 25.04.2007 (Annexure­P/2)

passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3,

respectively, by which the petitioner has been

inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two

increments without cumulative effect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that though the petitioner has been inflicted

with the penalty of stoppage of two increments

without cumulative effect, still departmental

enquiry is required to be conducted for

awarding any punishment. As such, the appellate

order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure­P/1) and the

order of the Disciplinary Authority dated

25.04.2007 (Annexure­P/2) deserve to be set

aside. He would place reliance on the judgment

rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of

O. K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India and others1.

4.     Learned        State           counsel     would    support       the
1    (2001) 9 SCC 180


     impugned    orders      and       submit   that   penalty     has

been imposed after following the due procedure

of law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their submissions made herein­above

and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that before inflicting even minor

penalties, departmental enquiry ought to have

been conducted appears to be correct. According

to the petitioner, it was raised before the

Appellate Authority also, but a careful perusal

of the order (Annexure­P/1) would show that the

Appellate Authority recorded the facts of the

case only in paragraphs 1 to 4 and in paragraph

5, without assigning any reason and without

considering the contention, dismissed the

appeal.

7. Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1966 is applicable in the instant case, which

states as under:­

"27. Consideration of appeal. ­ [(1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the appellate authority 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 non­compliance 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:

Provided that­

(i) the Commission shall be consulted in all cases where such consultation is necessary;

[(ii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties

specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 and an inquiry under Rule 14 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 19, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, make such orders as it may deem fit.

(iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 and an inquiry under Rule 14 has already been held in the case the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed, make such order as it may deem fit].

(iv) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16, of making a representation against such enhanced penalty."

8. The careful perusal of the order (Annexure­P/1)

would show that the Appellate Authority has not

considered as to whether the procedure laid

down in the rules have been followed or not

while inflicting the penalty and whether

finding of the Disciplinary Authority is

warranted by the record and whether the penalty

is adequate or severe and only thereafter

orders could have been passed. As such, the

appellate order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure­P/1)

is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted

back to the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent

No.2 for hearing and deciding the matter afresh

in accordance with law after giving opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner within a period of

2 months from the date of copy of receipt of

this order.

9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ

petition is partly allowed. No order as to cost

(s).

10. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the

contentions, as have been raised before this

Court, before the Appellate Authority as well.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the

case.

Sd/­ Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala