Chattisgarh High Court
G.P. Chouhan vs C.G. State Co-Power And Ors on 22 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 527 of 2013
G.P. Chouhan, S/o Late Shri Amali Ram Chouhan,
Aged about 59 years, Presently Working as
Assistant Manager, Manure Stocking Center
Kunkuri, Post and Thana Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Ltd., 880, Civil Lines, Thana and Post
Civil Line Raipur, Through the Secretary.
2. District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh, State
Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. Jashpur,
Post, Thana and Tahisl Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Distt. Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh, State Co
opearative Marketing Federation Ltd. Raigarh,
Post, Thana and Tahsil Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
22/09/2021
1. Petitioner herein calls in question the legality,
validity and correctness of order dated
31/01/2013 (Annexure P/1) by which his promotion
on the post of Assistant Manager has been
cancelled and he has been reverted to the post of
Senior Assistant.
2. Mr. Manoj Chouhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that the impugned order
is in violation of principles of natural justice
as without affording any opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, his promotion on the post of
Assistant Manager has been cancelled and he has
been reverted to the post of Senior Assistant
which runs contrary to the decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar
Mishra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others1.
3. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the
respondents, would submit that since the
petitioner did not follow the promotional order
dated 07/07/2008, therefore, his promotional
order has been cancelled. The petitioner has been
inflicted with punishment on 22/02/2012 for non
compliance of the directions and that order has
1 (2019) 17 SCC 648
attained finality, as such, the instant writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein
above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
5. True it is that petitioner was promoted on the
post of Assistant Manager vide order dated
07/07/2008 and he is said to have joined the
promotional post on 17/07/2008. Thereafter, on
31/01/2013 (Annexure P/1), petitioner's order of
promotion has been cancelled after he has worked
on the promotional post for more than 4 years and
he has been reverted to the post of Senior
Assistant.
6. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated
31/01/2013 (Annexure P/1) would show that it is
the case of the respondents that the order of
promotion dated 07/07/2008 has not been followed
by the petitioner and it runs contrary to Clause
18 and 23 of Karmchari Sewaniyam applicable to
the petitioner and it amounts to a serious
misconduct and he has been inflicted with
punishment on 22/02/2012, as such, his promotion
on the post of Assistant Manager has been
cancelled and he has been reverted to the post of
Senior Assistant.
7. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Rajnish Kumar
Mishra (supra), has held that even before
cancellation of regularisation, the opportunity
of hearing is necessary. Paragraph 17 of the
judgment states as under :
"17. As such, apart from the circular issued
by the Registrar General of the High Court
dated 05.11.2009, the appellants' cases were
also required to be taken into consideration
in view of the exception carved out in the
case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2. We
find that the Committee under the
chairmanship of the Additional District
Judge had rightly submitted its report dated
12.07.2012 and the then District Judge had
rightly passed the order of regularization
on 09.11.2012 granting regularization from
01.06.2012. We find, that while considering
the representation of some of the employees
for promotion, the successor in the office
of the District Judge could not have
annulled the order of the regularization of
the appellants which was done after
following the proper procedure. The least
that was required to be done was to follow
the principles of natural justice by giving
an opportunity of being heard to the
appellants. We find, that the three orders
passed by the District Judge dated
16.08.2014 also suffer from violation of the
principles of natural justice. "
8. In the instant case though the petitioner has
been promoted on the post of Assistant Manager
and he has been working on the promotional post
for more than four years, but by impugned order
dated 31/01/2013 (Annexure P/1) holding him
2 (2006) 4 SCC 1
guilty of certain misconduct, his order of
promotion has been cancelled without affording
him any opportunity of hearing and without
conducting any departmental enquiry, which is in
violation of principles of natural justice and
principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court
in Rajnish Kumar Mishra (supra). Apart from that,
petitioner has also been reverted to the post of
Senior Assistant without following the applicable
conduct rules.
9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31/01/2013
(Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. However, this
will not bar the respondents to proceed in
accordance with law. Since the petitioner has
already retired in the year 2016, he will be
entitled for all the service benefits of the
promotional post till the date of his
superannuation/entitlement which will be paid to
him within three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
