'IOI BEFuRE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. Inthe Matter of W.P.No"* " " Z2003 i:H PETIT,fONER -^. ^•^w ^" RESPONDENTS .(••>tl"i*» ..o" $^ ...A^" Krishnakant MIshra, aged about 46 yrs ^-^.<'S-y^ Son of Shri Bhaiyalal Mishra, Garden :^>j' .•^exf^ f Superiatendent Govemment Nursery and Horticulture Deparbment at Patari, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) versus State of Chhattisgarh, through : Principal Secretary, Department of Horticulture and Nursery, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh). Direetor, Horticulture and Nursery/Gardenuig, Mantralay, Raipur (Chtiattisgarh) 2) 3) 4) Pariyoj'ana Addhikari, Horticulture and Nursery, Korba, Chbattisgarh. / / ^f PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/^7 of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRFT IN THE NATuRE_OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND /OR AIW OTHER COMMAND OF LIKE NATURE ^'"'Sitft'J.igt, XI-HC-22 ~S~^ '<iwm<f, »T)1-y<i6, !«iMiyy itt^§ <.j3.f.t<o-2-t64'/Crl HWW, sh SIRsf^T 1 TSFn?T3i1^; ~»HR7tn^n I 3TR¥i?Ttn!^!:'gf^T s^'.K^ ?r-yS2^5:i sBl<<i<-t41-1 'lTTCRff -tf T^S (Fil^ili ^^rfigiran^r 5.9.2003 Petitioner by Shri R. Pradhaj^, Advocate. State by Shri Sanjay K. AgartFal, Dcputy Advocate General. Heard. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Ardcle 226/227 of tlie Constitution of ladia by wl^ich he has chaUenged the order of the Coumussioner, Bilaspur dt.\ 20/21 March 2002 by which petitioners one iiicreiaent has beqn stoppcd. The petitioners case is that at ftie relevant tune he was |workia.g as Superintendent, Govt. Nurseiy and was posted at Korba. He was perfomuag his duties witli utinost siucerity aad honesty. He |was given the additioual charge of Pariyojna Adhikari vide order dt. j24.1.2001. The petitioner was also lookiag aftcr onc prograiiune floatpd by the State as Apni Badi Apni Sabji' which was under ffae sup^rvision of ttie petitioner and was successfuUy perfonned by the ipetitioner for which he rcceived appreciation froui fhe Chief Minl.ster and Principal Secretary vide Aiuiexure P/2. On 25th Jaauaiy, ^001 fhe petitioner was required to attend the nicctiag in thc capacity of Pariyojaa Adhtkari Udyan. In the said meeting some questionsl were asked from the petitioner m. connection wifh the Indica Harcli paheU. Yojna but he could not icply and on account of fhat the petitibner was suspended vide order dt. 30th July, 2001 and a notice ^yas issued to fhe petitioner. The petitioncr icplied that noti.cc. Th| ;rcafter thc pctitioner was charge- slieeted of which the petitioner |subnutted point wise reply to fhe Collector, which is aanexure P/7.| Even though fhere was no fault on fhe part of fhe petitioner and thd petitioner answered aU the pouits_ [^^f XI-HC-22 ^q "'.N^!^<4, s7ftlprs, f^irey 05, S^.^T'^H 'IVIiv 'sVS^, 'aTOR-: litta ant^r'^snejT {ti|'4iCrR{t'T ^-T^' "^ l^^t 'd^FR^: ^7 Srfigt; 311^1 ^issiS •fci^S-^ti'i^ |SS''»®^» BF raised in the charge-sbeet even fh^n the petitioner was held guflty I - . i ^uider sub-rule (10) of Rule l^. of the M.P. Civil Services |Classification, Control and Appeal] 1^966) aad. puiiislmient of stoppage| Saiast which the petitioner pre|Ferred an. appeal and by the Lpugnedorder the Conuiussioner Rules, 1966 (For short 'Rules of two iacrements was awanled arfly aBowed fhe appeal however faiaintained fhe punislunent of sto]:jpage of one iacremient. The said pider is violadve of principles of i]|atural justice. Even thc chai^es i,vere aot proved aad the order of tjhe CoUector is not based ou fhe svidence. The order is contrary to|sub-rule (10) of Riile 11 of the Rules 1966, violative ofPrinciples ol|Article 311 ofthe Constitution of tndia. Therefore fhe petition niay be[ allowed aad fhe impugned order m.ay be quashed. I I have heard Shri B. Pradha<i, counsel for the peti.tioner and Bhri Sanjay K. Aganval, Deputy Adv^cate General for the State. i The State has not been. abl^ to file retum in spite of fhree 1 •• .. t jadjoununents given to fhe State a^id on 29th August, 2003 on fhe jrequcst of leanied couiisel for ftie ^tate onc week's tnnc was allowed 1ias a last opportunifr but eyen Stoday leamed Deputy Advocate |General is not in a position to file thle retura. A perusal of tlie ori.er of fhe (poUector by which two increnients |of fhe petitioner were stopped reve^ls fhat the reply of fhe einployee iwas not satisfactory that is why he [imposed a penalty of wifhlioldias |of tavo iiicreinents in a year undeij sub-rule (10) of Rule 11 of the « jRiUes, 1966. Iu this case the chargd sheet alongwifh memorandum, of [chaiges were served upon fhe petijtioner aad the reply of fhe same r^i XI-HC-22 p. -z) 6^/03 3'RjT^I T?:na7 3]1?SI SnrWBfe •s^\^giw 'sfs^ -J- qi]<<k-f4in ljre!ff'?TS^T ^? SrfitPT 3:IR?I f'" :!isia ^vas filed by the petitioner and. con^ideriiig the reply aad fhe Inaterial javailable before fhe CoUector, he pateed fhe order Annexure P/8. Rule 16 of the Rules 1966 lays down ffae procedure for |im.posiag miuor penalties. Clause| (d) of sub-nile (1) of Rule 16 jprovides for recording a fmditig ou (:ach tmputatton of inisconduct or xaisbehaviour. Whfle iniposing pen^lty the CoUector has not recorded his .Gnding on eacb offhe imputati^n of inisconduct aiid siuiply held jthat the reply of the petitioner is nqt satisfactoiy. This order is not ia consonaace witb. the requirement i sub-rule (1) ofRule 16 ofthe Rufes, t>f ftie provisions of clause (d) of 1966. Even the appeUate order of !ttie Conunissioner Aiuiexure P/1 j simply says fhat fhe order of ipuiushment is inodified aad it i^ rediiced froin stopp^e of two liacreinents to oae uicreiiient. Evcajthis onler also does uot nieet the Irequirement of fhe above provisioa. | In view of fhe above, the pi^aishment has not been awarded iafter foUowuig the procedure as ei^visaged uiider Rule 16, therefore ithe order of the Coflector and Coiiujussioner are liable to be set aside and quashed, [ Therefoi^, the petition of fhe jietitiouer is allowed and fhe order ,of the Comiuissioner Aruiexure Anjlexure P/ 1 and order of CoBector |Annexure P/8 are quashed. How^ver, fhe CoBector wouM be at liberty to conduct the enquuy afresh after foUowiug the procedure as Iprescribed under the Rules 1966. | Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- _ L.C. Bhadoo Judge l^^feq li\ sw