^ c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH/ ATBILASPUR / WRIT PETITION No.................................^0.2^...... OF 2003il PETITIONER :- RESPONDENTS ^Rufena Minj wife of Shri Silas Tirkey aged 35 years working as Lady Health Visitor District Hospital Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the secretary HealthDepartment, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. <» .^••%^ ^.^"^' ^>T' ^ <<^ >':/ 2. Joint director Health Services Bilaspur, Division, Bilaspur C.G. /• 3. Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh C.G. 4. Block Medical Officer P.H.C. Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh C.G. 5. Chief Medical Officer Jashpur Nagar Distt. Jashpur C.G. ^- PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227J3F CONSTITUTION OF INDIA y -_^_-_-—____.........-_.___.„_..._. Y HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Siagle Bench: Hon^ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 702 of 2003 Petitioner : Riifena Mixij Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior counsel wifh Shri Paakaj Agrawal, coiiasel for the petitioner. Shn Ajay Ehvivedi, Paiiel lawyer for fhe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (10th May, 2006) Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subniits that fhe petitioner was posted at Ghai^hoda Primaiy Health Centre as Lady Healfh Visitor, Distdct Jashpiir. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 30.3.1993 (Annexure P/l). On 4.7.2000 (Annexure P/2) after a period of aboiit 7 years, fhe order of suspension was revoked aad fhe question for payinent ofwages was to be decided by the enquiry oflBicer, ia accordaace with law. Accordmg to learaed counsel for fhe petitioner, the petitioner was denied benefit of two aiinual iacrements and the salary aiid other pecuniary benefits for the period, the petitioner reiciauied under suspension for about 7 years by order dated 3.10.2002 (Annexure P/6) without holdiag aay enquity. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondents to fhe reply of fhe respondents at paragraphs 14 and 15, which are as under :- "14. Reply to para 6(d) : It is true under Chhattisgarh CivU Services (Classificatioa, Control aad Appeal) Rules fhe suspension order aiitomaticaUy rcvoked after 45 days if charge sheet did not serve fhis suspension period caa be extended up to 90 days if fhe charge sheet did not sewe the suspeasion order autoniatically staads revoked but haviag knowledge this fact and rules, fhe petitioner kept herself absent froxn duty for seven years she never made any rcpresentation to her aufhorities. 15. Reply to para 6(e) : Withholding of salaiy was made in accordance wifh order passed Annexiire P-6. The petitioner is getfcuig aU her salary as per Annexiire attached. She is getting what she is entifled. She is not entitled to her salaiy during fhe period of her absent froia duty aad also ia coiapUance offhe order Annexurc P-6.^ On perusal of fhe iaipugned order dated 3.10.2002, it appears that during suspension period, a charge sheet was issued. Reply to fhe charge sheet was fUed by fhe petitioner. The respondents, bemg not satisfied with fhe reply, iaiposed fhe penalty of wifhholdiag of two annual iacreinents and furfher arrears of payment of salaiy during fhe period of suspension without holdio.g an enqiury. In view of the foregoiag, it is clearly evident fhat no enquiry was held beforc passiag fhe impugned onler ®) 6. imposiag penalty ofwifhholdirig oftwo annual iacreiaents aad non-paynient of full salaiy and other peczuiiary benefits for fhe period, fhe petitioner was suspended. The impugned order dated 3.10.2002 visits wifh penal consequences aad no order which adversely affects fhe eiaployee, caa be passed without afforduig aa opporfrunity of hearing to fhe eiaployee conceraed. The principle of natiiral justice is fhe basis ofpnnciple ofnde oflaw. For the reasons stated-above, fhe impugned order dated 3.10.2002 (Annexurc P/6) is quashed aiid the petitioner is entifled to consequential benefits. Howevei\ia fhe facts and circurastances of fhe case, the respondents arc at Uberty to hold fhe enquiry, if necessaiy, for consideriag the case as to whether the petitioner was entitied to salaxy or not. The question of graiit of fuiU uicreiaents niay also be considei-ed at fhe tibaie of enquiiy. The petitioner is also at Uberty to raise issue of delay ia holdiag fhe enquiry. The petition is aUowed to fhe above extent. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge