i^ ^' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF^HHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. - ^ 11 / 2011 Writ Appellant/ Writ Petitioner Respondents/ Respondents inWP(C) 5820/11 '^:^^ ^^•.:\^ "•--.. "^.\v ^w»^ <^* ^"~~ \~'\^ !i<IIJIt)» ^ Randhir Deyasi, Aged 52 Yrs. S/o Shri M.D. Deyasi, Behind Ganga Nursing Home, Jagatpur, Raigarh VERSUS 1.' Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Through its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (CG) 2^ Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Ltd., [A Chhattisgarh Govt. Undertaking, (A Successor Co. of CSEB)] Through, its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur 3. - Additional General Manager, Human Resources, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Ltd., [A Chhattisgarh Govt. Undertaking, (A Successor Co. of CSEB)], Danganiya, Raipur Being aggrieved by order dated 29/09/2011 of Single Bench ofthis Hon. Court dismissing Writ Petition registered as WP (C) - 582072011 filed against Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog order dated 31/05/20lFpassed in case # 497/2003 along with consequential proceedings ensuing vide notice #02- 11 /Stha. / Gopniya / 69 issued by AGM (HR) ofCSPDCL on 29/7/11. APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 (1) OF TH^CHHATTISGARH HlGH COURT (APPEAL TO DlVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 ^. HI^H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIL^SPUR Divislon Bench: Hon'ble Shri Jystice I.AA. Quddusi Hon'bi@ Shri Justice &. Minhajuddin Writ Appeal No.481/2011 APPELLANT: Randhir Deyasi Versus RESPONbENTS: Chhattisgarh Lok ^yog & others. ADDearance: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent No.l. ORAL ORDER (17.10.2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. 1. Heard. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (c) No.5820/11 dismissing the writ petition fiied by the petitioner/appellant herein against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by respondent No.l in Case No.497/03. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.02,2001 complainant-Dr. S-N. Agarwal lodged a compbint against the appellant herein with the respondent No.l alleging that the appelbnt herein is in possession of the properties disproportionate to his known sources o-f income. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent No.l conducted OOT inquiry and found that the appellant along with one Shri Ashish Toppo, Asslstant Engineer, has committed misconduct as defined under Section 2 (h) of the C.G. Lok Ayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (hereinafter shall be called *the Adhiniyam, 2002') and therefore, vide order dated 31.5.2011 the respondent No.l recommended for initiation of departmentai enquiry against the appellant herein. Respondent No.l further recommended that in the departmentGl enquiry if the charge of mlsconduct is proved against the charoed public servants then ,,,:^^^ ^ "..^ "'"^ %. -1 I vj r ^y I'vjk '%^^^ -\ penalty of compulsory retirement from th@ services be imposed on them. Being aggrieved by the said recommendations, the appellant has preferred a writ petition and the same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the recommendations made by the respondent NoJ to take disciplinary action against the appellant etc. are arbitrary and contrary to the proyisions of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam/ 2002, as the same viofates principles of naturai justice and also beyond the powers conferred on the respondent No.l by law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.l has supported the orders passed by the learned Singie Jud9e and the respondent No.l. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the impugned order as also the order passed by the respondent No.l. 7. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same is premature at this stage as no order has been passed pursuant to notice dated 29.7,2011 issued to the petitioner along with copy of the report of respondent No.l. 8. Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 reads thus:- ll.R@ports of Lok Aayog.- (1) If after enquiry of any action in respect of which a complaint has been received the Lok Aayog is of the opinion that the complaint is established, it shatl by a report in writing, communicate its findings and recommendations aiong with th© relevant documents and other evidence to the competent authority. ExplQnation^ Opinion of Lok Aayog in relation to any complaint inctuding a decision, report, finding or conclusion thereon, means the opinion of the majority of its members. (2) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and intimate to the ^•' ••'"" ,^,'.-^1^, % .-o ^\' Lok Aayog within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, (3) If the Lok Aayog is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to b@ taken on its recommendations/ it sha!l close the case under information to the comptainant, the public servant and the competent authority, and if in any case the Lok Aayog is of the opinion that the case so deserves, it may make a special report upon the case to the ^overnment and also inform the complainant. 9. A bare reading of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 would show that after enquiry of any action, in respect of which a complaint has been received, the Lok Aayog is of the opinion that the compiaint is established, it shall by a report in writing, communicate its findings and recommendations aSong with the relevant documents and other evidence to the competent authority, who, in turn, shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and intimate to the Lok Aayog within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon. 10. Further, according to definition given in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'recommendation' means ^suggestian or proposal as to the best course ofactiori. 11. In view of the above, it is clear that report of the Aayog is only a recommendation based on which no punitive action can be taken by the competent authority as under the statute i.e. C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 or any other relevant disciplinary rules, as applicable in the case of a charged public servant concemed, the procedure has been laid down to take action by the Competent Authority on receipt of the recommendGtions of respondent No.l. Therefore, any decision taken by the competent authority merely on the basis of recommendations of respondent No.l would be a futile exercise. Therefore, we are of the opinion that report of respondent 4 ^\ No.l along with relevant documents can form part of the charge sheet or show-cause notice, but the Competent Authority has to take an independent decision in respect of the charged public servant after fotlowing the procedure as laid down in the applicable service rules. 12.This Court in Writ Appeal No.24/2010 (Lakshman Chaturvedi Vs. Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Raipur) had observed that during course of enquiry before th©Lok Aayog, if any opinion is made by the Lok Aayog and the Sovernment accepts the same and takes any action by which the charged public servant feels aggrieved, it is atways open for him to take recourse of iaw. 13.In the instant case also, only show cause notice has been issued to the appetlant herein calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action under Section 19 (4) (2) of the C.G. Civst Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 should not be taken Ggainst him. Therefore, we feel that the learned Singte Judge has not committed any mistake in holding that the writ petstion, seeking quGshment of the order passed by respondent No.l and notice issued by respondent No.2, is premature one, for the reason that the appe!lant herein is not only having the opportunity to submit his reply to the said show-cause notice but also to cha!len9e the procedure, sf not followed properly, and ultinnate decision of the Competent Authority, which would be an independent decision, by taking recourse of IGW available to him under the ru!es. 14.In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal has no substance, the same is tiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. RoshanA 15, Certified^copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge