.J :j3uopp3d sq}jo repoii-rej •( eipuijo uopn^psuo^aq^jogz^ 3|3pjB japun uopi^ad ^UA^ •.lops-iig 3m3Birep\[ sii q§nojip('O'O) •indre'g upuej 'aopB.iodjo3 lusmdopASQ {BTflsnpai qjBSsin^qqo (^ •jopsjiQ Sui§BUBp\[s:i qSnojq: (•Q'3) mdre^[ 'preog ^usuidopASQ ywoipireH i(JESsiuBqq3 (\ / ::::: s^uapuoasa^ SHSM^ '('0"3) ^ndre^ 'uopBTOiiioo lu3mdo(3A3Q pu:snpuj a^ig qjBgsiwBipo 'j3SeuBp\[ AtndsQ 'sma/i •[f P^ocp paSia 'qSuig reip[3q§ wpuBqo uqg jo uog 'ispircqo -S'N / ::==: jauospaj 600Z/^^ &9 '°N(.5) "oppsd »UM. amsv^a 'iravosii.ivmiD jo IUAO^ HOIH SHI NI '~^%zl'^<; \ ^..r(^"""^3iA ^^'^•'^'^^ ~^^ffy:'-9^ ^mm ^^^^^' ^.A "-ttS^ \ fc' ..- '^ ^^w'^&^i.,'^ 'S. 'vy'^s .<sf ia;. "^ws^ .£/ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BSLASPUl WR!T,PtTiT{QNIS)NO,6857,PE2Su§ PETITiONER RESPONDENTS N.S. Chsndei' Versus Chhattisoarh Handfcraft Development Board & Anothe- fWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constituiion of India) '^y'.'i ;^1^ -L.^ <?h^ %^*r^h i<f &^nik^f*-i : lU^ uisv •w;!°i3 *.3sal,s3>; 1 r*.. j^^UHK-'i.U, u. Present:- Shri Anupam Dubev, Advocate for ihe peationer. Shri A!i Asgar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.. Shr, Kasnit yhaKesi, Advocate tor ths rssponaent No.Z. ORDtRISRAL] (Passed o" this 215' dsy of January, 2011) 1. Heard Isarnea counsei for the parties. 2. Chailenge in this oeiitlon is to the order o? recovei'y datey 30/09/2009 (Annexure P/15) passed by tne respondent No.1 Managing Directo?, Chhattisflarh Hundicraft DeveioDmsnt Board. Raipur: ffor short "the Borrowing Departmsnf"). Furtner of'der aated 14/10/2009 (Annsxure R17) passed by ths respondeni no.2 Managing Dirscior, Chhattisgarh Stete industrisi Deveiopment Corpo'ction, Pandri Raiour ifor short "the Lencs'sr'v Detiartfnenf'i. 3. The facts. jn brief. as Drojected , bv tins Detltioner, sre tnaf the peiltioner was an empioyes of respondsnt Lending Depan.rnent. By order dated 26/12'2005 (Annexure P/1). the peiitionei' was sent on deputation to the BorrowiRy Dspartment. it appeare ihat during his sen/ice oer'od some nnanciai irreguiariaes were norcea. Accordinaiv. a show causs notice was issued on 02/07/2009 (Annexure F/13) by ths Manaaing Director of ths Borrow'ng DeDartment. The ' oetitioner submitted his rs&iy on 11/G7/2009 {Annexure P/14i. Thereafter. hsvina consldsred repiv of tha oet'tioner. ths resoondent iVianaginCi Directoi- of BorrowiRg DeDartment by order dated 3&i09/20C9 (Annexure P/15) heid that ins ostitioner as wel! ss one S.L. Dhurve are responsibte lfor financiai irreguiarities and to that extent recovero for Rs.2,S7,604.SO was du'ected from the petitioner ss wei! from 3.L. Dhurve eacn for *e same amount. Thsreafter. the Lending Decartment fcy order dated 14/10'2CX39 (Annexurs P/17'i passed ihe orde]' of i'ecoverv. Thus, this Detltion. 4. Shri AnuDam Dubev. learned counsei for the oetitioner submits that the order oassed bv the Borrowing Departmera was wiihoui ^ s .<..&/ jurisdic-tson, s.s She Borrowing Dspartment cannct take any punitive steps against the petitioner, as the petitioner was on deputation. The authorities of the Lendins Department aione Is cornoetent to issue notice; to sonsider reply of the petitioner, but nof pass the finai order. Thus, the imougned order herein is vitiated. On the oiher hand, Shrl A!i Asgar, learned counsei for the resoondent Borrowing Department and Shri Kashjf Shakee!.'Advocate for the respondent Lendina Department submit that Rule 21 of the Chhsttisgarh Civii Services (Glsssification, Control & Appeai), Rutes, 1966 provides for initlation of discioilnarv Droceedinas snd aiso Dassinfl of the ordsr with InfQrmatlon to the Lendina DeDartment TOFTtlWlin. in the case on hand. the Drocess was Initiated by the Borrowinc DeDartment by Issuina show cause notice and thereafter. on consideration o'f the repiy of the petitloner, order was passed hoidjng the petltioner liabie for payment of the amount! as aforestated. Thereafter, the entire fiie was sent to ihe Lendina Deoartment and ?f*''*^^ ^^yiF^f^-.v i^^^*<r^ irt^/^<rsa--^*v^J r"^i^ 'S-Ui^* /•<.i a'it'i^EFSit'*?!'f[-^/^(^ /^^ IB'vtt'^t i .c'v ys ^'? s'-t >*d IH^ TiHo.i OfQer WSS po.SS8C oy ins SsUiHOi'foss OY IHQ LSHGring Departnsnt on 14/10/2009 (Annexure P/17). I hsve heard 'earned counsei'for the Darties. oerused the oleadinas and She documents aDpsnded thereto, The rule 21 of the Rufes, 1966 is as under;- "21. Provlsions reflarding of?icers borrowad from Union or other Government, °to- (1) VVhere an order of suspension is made or a discipiinary procesding Ss conducted against a Govemment servant whose s&n/ices have been borrowed b" one dspanment from another department or from the Union Government or any other State Go"ernmsnt or an authority subordinate thereto or a locai or other authoritiss, the authority iending his sen/ices (hereinafter >n this ruie referred to as '^ha iending authority") shail fcrthwith be informed of the circum.stances ieading to the order of suspension of the GovernmeRt servant of the commencement of the discipiinary proceeding, as the csse may be" (2) In the iight of the findings 'n the dlscipiinary proceeding conciucted against the Government servant if the discjpiinary authority is of the opin'on that^any of the penalties specifSed is clauses (i) io (iv) of Ruie 10 shouid be imposed on him, i{ msy, subjsct to the provssions of sub-ruie (3) of Rute, 15, after consuifation wjth fhe lending authofity, pass such order, on the case as it may deem n&cessar,'. ® provided that in the event of a djfforence of opinion between ihe borrowing authoritv and the lendsng authority the sen/ices of the r |W< Goyernment servsnt shaii be replaced st the disposai of the iending authority; (ii) if ihe discipSinary authority ts of the opinion that any of the penalties spedfiec in clauses (i") to (ix) of Rule 10 shouid be imposed on e Government servant, it snai! reoiace the sen'ices o? such Government servant at She disposai of the landlng authcrity and transmit to it ths oroceedinfls of the inquiry for such acfion as it may cieem necessary. There is no dispute with reaard to the facts that the Detitioner was workins wlth resoondent No.1/ Borrowing DeDanment on deputation basis. it is aiso not in dlspute that the show cause notice w&s also issued bv the respondent No.1i'Borrowna DeBs^rrsnt on 11/0772009 (Annsxure P/14). Thsreafter, repiy was also fiied by the peiifioner. Ths Borrowing authority by order dated 02/05/2003 directed recovsry ^s i ^Q^r- 'iVJi ^ 'i '7THTl ^^i^f\' HTUT Gl^fT ZRT r;.7i"-fGif Ui-yT TTST ^'' v.-i^vn^r.^ rt^St/^S^ ^ 3T?' 5]T1^ •n[t-,s^.^<)j U, ^T^^}}-^^ TFF ITT^f^r Ti"5:7T??fT ?T ^ ;^pq^ ^^J3 11- ^^ q^ClI ^. ^•^i d: ^g | •^fr1: Cti'-jl ^ifcjfr^ti';^: q-1; ^ j1*-TlCt;'< w;'r1r1 ^,!Y •y.'. '{'^.'{'^i. T-s'^^, <1;r7:PL '^RIU^^'::7 'Ti 5Q%^Tfe V. 2y.SQ4.aQ/- Vf ?it T?'CT.7^i. CT? ^TsT. NS?^ f. 50% ':fnf 'w. 2.97.604.50/- a~»T^?T cS T?R^7 T34 yff3' •^- .. . .. ','-: —£-. .'' . •~\ . .<-.. .-'^. __L^ -_^ ,,, ? ; i-'-lfMi'l^tl'; q iqei, cpT cni^qigT IL^]".?'qrl S'lT U1!<, !' 10. Thereafter. the fiie was sent to the Lendins DeDartment and the Lendinfi Authoritv bv order dated 14/1Q'2009 passed foiiowing order ss under:- ":: affs<r :; '<3^T ^rfti ^.2.97.604.50 '^t ^K-ii' t^RT^^T^ t^^lT ^ '^•t n@ x!W "•B. "i^'^T tflT ^f^lT -i^F ^T^I ^. w. 2604.50 KS ';sb^r[ 01 "icp'^i «aVst ~S. 2,9£,030.00 w. 2604.50 •;n^ ysfSMSi \5 ^ *; sa-^; -^ \-l |< ^T^- S^G-C^? 20G9 ^T u-Kf+:l1 ?" IG^T;'; +1 ^'CKft «$f 7^ "^mf^T. ^ET ^NT^E?' ^TF. St^jttl^H I^^PT ^T§. '\I'STT'V- '" ^yW' ^'T v?ii^'i 11 I ^H ^T.T^. ^^^ ^T "'H^'^T—'^T'1-, •"v ?3'lri ^!" !^iC^ c''~t''i ^1 'X'"*'t~i •:^i ^n^i •t 'Fi 1 '-j1?^"! '^l'^l <:"i c;^^- £,. .&,. ^, • -^,^ ——ni. -a-} ..-rf-r?~r- ~^ -n—,—^ -^- -C--...-r f^ .,-_'•; 7pT ^TT 'xI^rfT h, 1<7T ^ie? &-T'T '§,^ "^TXT ;^T ^'^•ii c^ 1"^^ Tc^^t On Derusai of the abovestated orovisions of Rule 21 of the Ryles. 1966, it Is clear that the Borrowina Authority is luily cornpetent to initiate proceedings of a departmenta! pr.scsedings or may piace an emglovee ynder susoension as the case mav be. Theresfter. in the 1 "~v / ''%.^/'ir^y "'^.^^I'B^-" ll»aa 14. 15. light of nndings in the proceedings, the Lending Department may oass the final order. In the case on hand, the proceeding was initiaied by the Borrowing Department by issuing show cause notice, repiy of ths peiitioner was considered and fhe findings in resoect of the show cause notics was recorded by the Managing Director of Borrowing Department. Thereafter. finai order of recoven/ and the manner of recoverv was directed by the parent deDartment i.e. Lending DeDartment. Thus, there is no vioiation of Ruie 21 of the Ruies, 1966 as the oetitioner was afforded prosaer opportunitv of hearina and deelsior was taken ihereon after considering the reply of the petitioner. The petitioner does not chalienge tegai'ty and validity of the impugned orders o" anv other around. For ths rsasons mentioned hereinabovs, the wrif oetition, beinq devoid of iTiei'ft. is liable and is hsrebv dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge