Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2025

                                                1




                                                           2025:CGHC:15342

                                                                            NAFR
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   WPS No. 10149 of 2019

          1 - Rajesh Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Parasnath Nishad Aged About 43
          Years Presently Posted As Peon, Civil Court, Ambagarh Chouki, District-
          Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                         Versus
          1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law Department,
          Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur,
          (C.G.)(As   Per    Hon'ble    Court       Order  Dated      08-10-2024)

          2 - The Displinary Authority/District & Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon,
          District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh

          3 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Through, Registrar General,
          High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.)(As Per
          Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-10-2024)              ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Lav Sharma, P.L. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Prasoon Bhaduri, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.04.2025

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 23/08/2019 bearing no.35/2019/A.R.(D.E.) (Annexure-1) and order dated 05/01/2019 (Annexure-P/2) bearing No.04/2-12-4/2016 passed by the respondent No.1 and respondent no.2.

ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant

time, the petitioner was holding the post of Peon in the Court of

Civil Judge, Class-II, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon. A

department enquiry was initiated and a penalty of stoppage of

three increments for three years with cumulative effect was

passed on 5.1.2019 by the Disciplinary Authority. He would

contend that a departmental appeal was preferred according to the

Service Rules before respondent No.3. He would further contend

that respondent No.3, without assigning reasons and in a cryptic

manner, dismissed the appeal. He would also contend that various

grounds were raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal and

those grounds have not been considered at all. He would pray to

quash the order dated 23.8.2019 passed by respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. vs. Madhusudhan

Rao, reported in (2008) 2 SCR 610 and the judgment passed by

this Court in the matter of H.K. Lagar vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin

Bank and Ors., in WP(S) No. 5521 of 2012.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3

would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

He would submit that respondent No.3 after due appreciation of

the order passed by the disciplinary authority, has affirmed its

findings. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made

by counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and

perused the documents present on the record.

8. In the matter of Kothagudem (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held in paras 18 & 19 as follows:-

"18.Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also having regard to the detailed manner in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had dealt with the matter, including the explanation given regarding the disbursement of the money received by the respondent, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal and endorsed by the High Court. No doubt, the Divisional Forest Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but it was also the duty of the appellate authority to give at least some reasons for rejecting the appeal preferred by the respondent. A similar duty was cast on the revisional authority being the highest authority in the Department of Forests in the State. Unfortunately,

even the revisional authority has merely indicated that the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer had been examined by the Conservator of Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of misappropriation was clearly proved. He too did not consider the defence case as made out by the respondent herein and simply endorsed the punishment of dismissal though reducing it to removal from service.

19. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum."

9. In the matter of H.K. Lagar (supra), this Court has held in paras

31 to 34 as follows:-

"31. Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the Disciplinary Authority, it may not be speaking order, but the Authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind in compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction particularly when the rules required application of mind on several factors and several contentions had been raised and he was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the Court reviewing its decision to ascertain as to whether it had applied its mind to the relevant factors which the rule required to do. (See 13 (2008) 3 SCC 469 14 (2001) 5 SCC 340 Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2006) 4 SCC 713).

32. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the legal position enumerated hereinabove, it is quite vivid that the appellate authority has not assigned any reason to indicate that it has applied its mind on the grounds raised and not even a brief reason has been indicated in the appellate order to say that due procedure as per the regulation has been followed while conducting departmental enquiry and further that the findings of the

Disciplinary Authority are based on record and the penalty imposed is just and proper. As such, the Appellate Authority has failed to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

33. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid legal discussion, the impugned order of petitioner's removal from service dated 24/05/2012 (Annexure P/8) as well as the appellate order dated 03/09/2012 (Annexure P/9) are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 Bank is directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits.