\^ ^Yv ^' 3?T^r^?1^w WT ^n^sCTW ^ ~^s( ^[^w^^w^wi^, wTraTn. "^www'w^ "^200 33R^T ^f^T ('!|<'lf3^'tT) ^<T!W3:ifli!T ^T^T "^p^m^ ^ipr^f ^'f^'t 'ri^iT ^ atfw 5?T^r DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. bHIRENDRA MIS hlRA & HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAK/JR. JJ Writ Appea (Appeal U/s 2 of C.&. Hiqh Cod No. 191/2008 irt (Appeal to Division Bencht Act. AppeNants Respondents V/ersus 2b06) 1. Stat^ of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secrjetary, Department of Revenue, Man1jralaya,t).K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C<5) 2. The j Commissioner, Bilaspur bivision, Distrtict Bilaspur (CG). Respondent (Petitioner) 30.07.2009 Baijnat}) Bande, S/o- Anand bas Bande, Aged al|>out 60 years, R/o Village Sendri, Tahsil <&! District Bilaspur (CG) Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Ad4itional Advocate General for the appellant-State. Mr. K.R. Noir, Advocate for the respondent. Heard. j 1 This writ appeal has b^en preferred by the State of Chhattisgarh against the order dated 28.4.2008 passed in W.P. (s) No.2674/05 whereby learned Singie Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent herein, quashed the order dated 24.10.1995 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 25.10.1997 passed by the State Government and directed that the respondent herein be 1 l/^OO^-- -' -0(\OiA1 -=F~ ^?^ 3ii^T ^rf^TO ^?T3^^T1FRW \^^ -3'^T ^l-^ld^, ^^Wrr^, l'T^HTT:[T ^NW^n w^i^ ^^^200 ^I^T'q^^ (:^<^<^) iw?w ^nN ^^ •^ '"':FH?RT^T'T Tn1:^;i? '^ T^~rf TT^I"'^T<' ^ -3-HTR ^¥1 reinstated in service With all c^isequential benefits including back wages. However, liberty was reser accordance with law. Undisputed facts emerging Lormi, bistrict Bilaspur. Initially report submitted by the Enquiry! herein from service. Appeal prefej 'ed to the State to take any action in rom perusat of the impugned order are that the respondent herein w^s appointed as Second Grade Clerk and at the relevant time he was ^/orking as Reader to the Tehsildar, departmental enquiry was initiated at the instance of the Collector, E^ilaspur, who on the basis of enquiry Officer dismissed the respondent red by the respondent was further dismissed by the Commissioner, hywever, the State Government vide order dated 26.5.1990 quashed th? order passed by the Commissioner confirming the order of the ! District Collector and directed reinstatement of the respondent h^rein in service with full back wages. Subsequently, fresh charge sheet was issued by the disciplinary authority i.e. Commissioner, howevpr, the petitioner failed to submit reply to the charge sheet in time. | The Deputy Collector, Bilaspur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, whoj submitted his report on 5.12.1994 holding that charges No.l to 4 asjproved and charge No.5 was found partially proved. •r /.^H)S" --i -,n? OD^. •'•^^. jl 1 1. . V t ^,. '^-^ .--^ ^^^0^' 3ff^T^T^W WT ^i^y s»»ii^ -3-5ST -=^j^l^^^ ^TIW^I^ ^"1W^< •^TO'^l'^-^l^h '^ 200 3^?T <!FT^' (^t^^^1 t^riw3^^Ti^ "S-i "??T?iWr^Ff 'nrn^T ^'r^'zT 'rr^T?' ^•3^m •im^T Respondent herein in respo^se to the enquiry report submitted that important witnesses were rjot summoned for recording their statements and he was not afforde|j opportunity to cross-examine them on the ground that the respondent-^employee made a statement that he had already stated whatever he wajited to say. Other objection of the respondent herein was that he coul<| be further examined only after the witnesses were examined and cross-|examined by the prosecution. However, without considerin^ the objections of the respondent employee, the Commissioner accept^d the enquiry report and dismissed the respondent from the service hojlding that the charge of misconduct has been found proved. Appeal preferred by the respondent employee was further dismissed by the StatejGovernment. Respondent herein preferredja writ petition ogainst the order of the State Government and the sam^ was allowed by the impugned order dated 28.4.2008 with the observations that the State Government vide its order dated 26.5.1990 remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh departmental proceedingsj in accordance with law. Rule 14 of the C.&. Civil Services (Classificatiori, Control <& Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules') provides for procedure for enquiry, however, the enquiry officer without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules concluded the enquiry by treating the same as continuation of 1 /200S-- -•1-/)0 OOC -t- ^-••^-s^^ < \'.^ • •-y??^<^'%.,. ^ -^N$». f! ^'^'^ ^.^^:i-' 3?i^Tr^T it^ •^m^n^T^TO^ ^^[-^n41dJT, <c9Tl1^'l€ t^TT?THT ^w?tr WNi<h •^200 ^^ (^^^^) i^iTW^ti^^i^r ^- h- earlier enquiry as per Rule 14 (22) case the enquiryofficer was req^iired to conduct enquiry from the inception in accordance with Rul^ observed that entire allegation related to fact that he issued Pattd respondent herein was seriously -w?m^r 'HF^f ^ ^st TN^H ^•3tf?P?3T1^3 of the Rules, though in the instant 14 of the Rules. It is further ^igainst the respondent employee in the name of Tehsildar by forging his signature, however, by non-exai^ination of concerned Tehsildar the prejudice by not offording him opportunity of cross-examining t|ie said witness. It was further directed that petitioner be reinstafed in service with all consequential benefits, including the back wag^s flowing from quashing of the impugned orders dated 24.10.1995 4"d 25.10.1997. However, it is open to the respondents to take any Qctio|i in accordance with law. After going through the impJugned order we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by |f-he learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and there ^is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the writ aRlpeal has no substance, the same deserves to be dismissed and is, qccordingly, hereby dismissed. No i order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ?.^T^^ ^ -W H~^1<^ ZT^RT?1T?^—-[•'S/95--—4 1 /2008-—3,00,000.