H.P. KINDO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 20-12-2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Under Secretary to the State of Chhattisgarh, General Administrative Department, by which one annual increment of the petitioner has been stopped with cumulative effect. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 30-10-2007 (Annexure P/1) where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20-12-2006 (Annexure P/2) has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as stated in the petition, for proper disposal of the case, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector in the year 1992. On creation of the new State on 1-11-2000, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. At that time, the petitioner was posted as Additional Collector, Bilaspur. According to the petitioner, on 10-12-2003, the Selection Committee held a meeting to consider selection of State Civil Services Officers for their induction in the IAS cadre for the years 2002 and 2003. Accordingly, name of the petitioner was recommended and his name found place at serial No. 3. Thereafter, by notification dated 16-01-2004, the Union of India appointed the petitioner as a member of Indian Administrative Service along with other persons. In the said select list, it was mentioned that the select list was provisional subject to grant of integrity certificate by the State Government. Other officers joined the cadre post; however, the petitioner could not join the said post on the ground of non-availability of integrity certificate.

(3.) The petitioner submitted an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Court below, which was rejected by the Special Judge, Durg. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a petition before this Court being M.Cr.C.No. 1052 of 2004 (H.P. Kindo v. State of Chhattisgarh & others). This Court by order dated 25-6-2005 disposed of the said petition and quashed the charge-sheet in its entirety against the petitioner.