Rajnarayan Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1161 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajnarayan Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2025

                                              1




Digitally signed                                               2025:CGHC:2113
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI                                                                        NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 4154 of 2018

        •   Rajnarayan Pandey S/o Ram Jatan Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o
            House No. 54/1630 Ring Road No. 1, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, District
            Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                              ... Petitioner
                                           Versus
        1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Scheduled
           Tribe And Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development
           Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur
           Chhattisgarh
        2. Commissioner Department Of Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste
           Development Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
        3. Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
        4. Commissioner, Tribal Development Indrawati Bhawan Raipur, District
           Raipur Chhattisgarh
        5. Additional Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
        6. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raipur, District Raipur
           Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Addl.Adv.General

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/01/2025

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

"10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the order dated 07/05/2018 (ANNEXURE P1) passed by the respondent no. 2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 08/02/2017 (ANNEXURE P2) looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case and looking to the age of the petitioner.

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for its kind perusal.

10.4 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay all the consequential benefit and any other suitable relief in the favour of petitioner."

2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was holding the post of

Assistant Grade-II in the Office of Collector, Tribal Development

Department, was removed from services by the Disciplinary Authority

vide order dated 08.02.2017 and further there was a direction to

recover the amount of Rs.31,87,810/-. He would further submit that the

petitioner preferred a detailed departmental appeal before the

appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 2 who dismissed it in a cryptic

manner without assigning any reason vide order dated 07.05.2018. He

would also submit that the amount of recovery as ordered by the

disciplinary authority against the petitioner has already been deposited

with the concerned institution. In support of his submissions, he placed

reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of State of Uttaranchal and Ors. vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8

SCC 236; Govt. of A.P. & Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC

338; Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur, (2015) 2 SCC 410;

Jai Bhagwan vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors, (2013) 11 SCC

187 and Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari,

(2017) 2 SCC 308.

3. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that sufficient

opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner; the appellate

authority has affirmed the findings recorded by the Disciplinary

Authority and there is no discrepancy in the order passed by the

authority concerned.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

5. Admittedly, the appellate authority in a cryptic manner dismissed the

appeal preferred by the petitioner, whereas various grounds were

raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal and such a stand is not

acceptable in the law, therefore, the order passed by the appellate

authority dated 07.05.2018 is hereby quashed.

6. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the

appeal afresh after considering all grounds raised by the petitioner in

the memo of appeal. The entire exercise shall be completed within a

period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The

appellate authority is also directed to consider the fact that the

recovery amount has already been deposited with the concerned

institution, if any.

7. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh appeal along with a

copy of the appeal preferred earlier. The petitioner would also be at

liberty to raise all available grounds.

8. In the result, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti