Appellant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ WrjtAppeal No.21 of 2007 D.S. Dubey, S/o Late Shri SD Dubey, aged about 55 years, working as Assistant Grade -III, Public Works Department, Sub Division Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondente 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretar/, Public Works Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantrataya, Raipur (CG) The Chief Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, District Bitaspur (CG) The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) (Writ appeal under Rule 157(10) ofthe High Court of Chhattisgarh Rutes, 2005) Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counset forthe appeltant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (22nd March, 2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J ThEs writ appeal is directed against the order dated 10th May, 2006 passed in W.P. No.2418/06, whereby petitioner's writ petition against the order of the Chief Engineer imposing penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect in a disciplinary proceeding has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case as projected in the writ petition, are that the appellant is working as Assistant Grade-111 in the Public Works Department, BitaSpur. He was placed under suspension by respondent No.3 on the ground that he did not discharge the offidal duties and indulged in direct correspondence wjth the higher authorities. Subsequently, a charge sheet was served upon him for the aforesaid misconduct and vide order dated 13.5.2005 he was reinstated, withholding one annual increment wjth cumulative effect. He preferred an appeal against imposition of penalty vide Annexure P/2. However, his appeal was not decided for a considerabie period and ultimately, he filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.428/06, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure P/4) with a direction to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Range to consider and 1. decide the appeai of the petiti'oner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance with iaw. Thereafter, his appeai was dismissed on 19.4.2006 vide Annexure P/6. The appellant's writ petition against the order dated 19.4.2006 has been further dismissed by the fearned Singie Judge with the follovving observations: "Nothing has been mentioned in this petition that the Superintending Engineer/Enquir/ Officer did not foliov\/ the rufes while conducting the enquiry or there was failure of justioe on account of non-compliance of the principles of natura! justice or the rules. No ground has been raised that there v\/as no material before the Enquiry Officer to reach to .the conciusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner vv'as not substantiated based on the evidence avaslabte on record. Therefore, ! am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to raise the point that the appellate authority has not followed the sub- rule (2) of Ru!e 27 ofthe Rules, 1966." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the departmental proceedjngs, the Enquiry Officer did not follow the principles of naturat justice as proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the appellant; the appellate authority dismissed the appeai in complete violation of Ruie 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sen/ices (Classification, Control & Appeais) Rules, 1966 (in short "the Rules, 1966"); and the enquirywas compieted In a singte day i.e. statements of the two prosecution witnesses namely S.K. Sharma - Executive Engineer and S.K. Singh - Sub Divjsiona! Officer, were recorded on 13.5.2005. The Enquiry Officer submjtted his report on the same day and the order of punishment was also passed on 13.5.2005, which clearly demonstrates predetermined of the concerned authorities to hold the appeliant guilty and punish him. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, subrnits that the departmenta! enquiry was conducted as per Ruje 16(1) (a) ofthe Rules, 1966. Spedfic charges were framed and a show cause notice was seived upon the appellant. The witnesses were exarnined to establish the charges in presence of the appeilant, who has not chalienged the statements of the above witnesses in the cross- examination and has put his endorsement that their statements are not acceptabie. He further submits that the appeliant nowhere raised these questions in the writ petition and is agitating the same for the first time in ^w^ ® Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of 'u'fe Insurance Corporation of Indla and others Vs. Jyotish Chandra Bfswas, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 562, it is argued that in intra Court appeal the grounds that have not been taken in the writ petition or in the arguments before the learned Single Judge, cannot be agitated for the first time in writ appeai. 5 Heard learned counsel for the parties. perused the pfeadings in the writ petition and material avaitable on record. 6. !n the writ petition, the appellant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.4.2006 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the his appeal against the order of punishment dated 13.5.2005 passed by respondent No.3 was dismissed. The appellant has neither chalienged the procedure adopted in the enquiry proceedings nor did he impugn the enquiry report. He has atso not prayed for quashing of the order of punishment in the writ petition, and impugned the order passed in appeai only on the ground that the same has been passed in compfete vjoiation of Ruie 27(2) ofthe Rules, 1966. in these circumstances, the tearned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with the observations as reproduced hereinabove. Thus, following the dedsion in the matter of Jyotish Chandra Biswas (supra), we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be permitted to agitate any fresh ground for impugning the order of the learned Single Judge in writ appeal. 7. For the reasons indicated above, we are of the opinion that there is no Iliegaiity or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference, The appeal is without any substance; the same deserves tb be dismissed ^nd is, accordingiy, dismissed. ———— Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra RJM. Chandrakar Judge , Judge ^ ^