[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Babban Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14788
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3119 of 2021
1 - Babban Chouhan S/o Shankar Lal Chauhan Aged About 36 Years
Peon , C/o Protocol Section, High Court Establishment, Bodri , Bilaspur ,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Law
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Naya Raipur ,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh High Court Through Registrar, Bodri Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate
For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30.03.2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records relating
to this case.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow the petition and set-aside
the impugned order dated 17.12.2019
(Annexure P/6) and appellate order dated
23.02.2021 (Annexure P/9) and allow the
petitioner all consequential benefits, in the
interest of justice.
10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper together with
cost of the petition."
2. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee on the
post of (Sweeper) on 15.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Peon on 01.04.2016. Mr. Jha, Advocate
would fairly submit that three departmental inquiries were initiated
against the petitioner. In two departmental inquiries, he was
inflicted with penalty of Censure vide order dated 05.08.2019 and
in third departmental inquiry, penalty of stoppage of one annual
increment with non-cumulative effect was passed on 05.08.2019
itself. He would submit that thereafter, matter was placed before
the competent authority and a decision was taken on 17.12.2019
to revert his services to the post of Contingency Paid Employee.
He would further submit that the petitioner has been punished
twice on account of his Work and Conduct. He would contend that
the foundation of penalty inflicted on 17.12.2019 was same which
were dealt with in departmental proceedings. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lt. Governor, Delhi and
Others Vs. HC Narinder Singh, reported in 2004 (13) SCC 342,
wherein, it is held that second proposed action based on the same
cause of action proposing to deny promotion or reversion would
amount to double punishment based on the same cause of action.
He would pray to quash the decision taken on 17.12.2019.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 would oppose submissions. He would submit that
initially, the petitioner was appointed as Contingency Paid
Employee and later on, he was promoted to the post of Peon. He
would contend that three departmental inquiries were pending
against the petitioner and in those departmental inquiries, he was
inflicted with penalty of Censure and withholding of one annual
increment with non-cumulative effect. He would contend that after
completion of two years of service, the matter was placed before
the competent authority to consider his case for confirmation and a
decision was taken to revert him to the post held by him prior to his
promotion and such decision was taken strictly in accordance with
the provision of the Chhattisgarh High Court Service (Appointment,
Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2017 (for short the Rules
of 2017'). He would refer to Rule 11(4) of the Rules of 2017. He
would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer would support the
contention made by Mr. Das.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the documents placed on record.
6. Rule 11(4) of the Rules of 2017 is reproduced herein below :
"11(4) : Probation, Officiation and Confirmation -
(1) xxxxxxxx
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(4) At the expiry of the period of probation or officiation, as the
case may be, the Chief Justice or such other Judge or Officer
nominated by the Chief Justice shall consider the suitability of the
person to hold the post to which he is appointed or promoted; and-
(i) If he is found suitable to hold the post, the Registrar General
with the approval of the Chief Justice, shall issue an order
confirming his service in the post.
(ii) If he is not found suitable to hold the post to which he is
appointed or promoted, the Registrar General with the approval of
the Chief Justice shall; -
(a) If he is promoted revert him to the post held by him prior to his
promotion; or
(b) If he is a probationer, discharge him from service."
A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it
clear that after expiry of period of probation, case would be placed
before the competent authority or Officer nominated by the Chief
Justice. The matter was considered by the competent authority
and the petitioner was not found suitable to hold the post to which
he was promoted and therefore, a decision was taken to revert him
to the post held by him prior to his promotion.
7. With regard to contention of double punishment taken by Mr. Jha,
it is not a case where on account of same cause of action, the
petitioner has been punished twice rather in the present case, the
competent authority while examining suitability of the petitioner for
confirmation, took decision according to the Rule 11(4) of the
Rules of 2017 and the petitioner was reverted.
8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find
any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
