Chattisgarh High Court
Surjeet Singh Sindhu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 December, 2022
1
WA No. 657 of 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
(Arising out of order dated 05.9.2022 passed by learned Single Judge
in WPS No.3316/2020)
WA No. 657 of 2022
Surjeet Singh Sindhu S/o Late Harbhajan Singh Sindhu,
Aged About 43 Years Working As Line Paricharak Category -
H, Purena Zone, Nagar Sambhag Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.,
Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Head Quarter At
Gudiyari Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution
Company Limited, Office At New Purena Basti Road 33/11,
Beside K.V. Upkendra Purena, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4. Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power
Distribution Company Ltd. City Circle - I, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State :- Ms. Astha Shukla, G.A.
For Respondents No.2 to 4 :- Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Adv on
behalf of Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Judgment on Board
2
WA No. 657 of 2022
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
05/12/2022
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal is against the order dated 05.9.2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3316/2020
whereby petition filed by the appellant / petitioner
(hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant who is working
as Attended Grade-II (Paricharak Category-II) with
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, was
imposed with punishment of stoppage of one annual
increment without cumulative effect vide order dated
14.3.2018, departmental appeal having being preferred, the
same was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned
Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy. He would further submit
that by taking into consideration the pleading and reply filed,
the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the
petition only on the ground of alternative remedy as the
issue could have been decided in the original jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He
refers to the relevant rules and would submit that no
WA No. 657 of 2022
opportunity of hearing was given /to the appellant before
such penalty was imposed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for
respondents No. 2 to 4 oppose the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant. They would submit that
appellant can very well approach the alternate forum as the
issue involves disputed question of facts and law and it is
not clear as to whether the appellant did not avail the
opportunity despite the notice of Departmental Enquiry and
it can be clarified only during the hearing before the Labour
Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the documents available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the Chhattisgarh State Power
Distribution Company is Schedule industry as defined under
the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960. The
respondent industry falls within item 3 of the Schedule as
notified by the State of Chhattisgarh and the appellant being
an employee as defined under Section 2(13) of the
Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act. The main grievance of
the appellant is that the punishment of stoppage of one
annual increment without cumulative effect was passed
against him without giving opportunity of hearing. The fact
WA No. 657 of 2022
remains that issue which pertains to the fact that whether
appellant was given any notice of Departmental Enquiry or
whether he chose to not to appear or abstain, is the matter
of evidence and it is a disputed question of fact. Its a
unilateral submission of the appellant that he was not given
opportunity of hearing, it cannot be accepted as a one way
truth unless these issues are placed before the adjudicatory
authority i.e., the Labour Court which is empowered to
adjudicate the issue of like nature.
8. Consequently, there being disputed question of fact, the
order of learned Single Judge whereby the appellant has
been referred to avail the alternative remedy cannot be said
to be improper.
9. In view of above, the appeal stands dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge
Ayushi
