RAMESH ROTKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3057/2005 (Ramesh Rotkar v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) & Others).

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant are that the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was initially appointed as Teacher in the Education Department on 15.11.1960. Later on, he was selected as Probationary Officer in the Social Welfare Department and thereafter, promoted as Superintendent vide order dated 29.07.1982. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 04.03.1994. The appellant submitted his reply on 25.08.1994 and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 19.09.1997. On the basis of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 16.10.1997 to submit his written reply. The appellant submitted his written reply on 17.12.1997. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of reversion from the post of Superintendent to Probationary Officer by order dated 25.09.1999. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an application being O.A. No. 885/1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur. On formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the matter was transferred to this Court and the matter was registered as W.P.(S) No. 3057/2005. During hearing of the petition, the records of the departmental enquiry were called by the learned Single Judge wherein it was evident that the respondents had failed to supply any documents for examination and cross examination of witnesses. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 25.09.1999 impugned therein. Further, it was directed that the appellant shall be treated as having continued on his original post of Superintendent with all consequential benefits, had he continued in service on the post of Superintendent. It was further held that only 50% of the difference of pay of the post of Superintendent and Probationary Officer was payable to the appellant.

(3.) Smt. Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred by holding that only 50% of the difference of pay of the post of Superintendent and Probationary Officer was payable, as the order dated 25.09.1999 which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was quashed holding it to be illegal as the appellant was never allowed to cross examine the witnesses and relevant documents were also not supplied to him during the course of departmental enquiry. Thus, the whole enquiry proceeding was held to be vitiated. In the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to pay full back wages i.e. the difference of pay of the post of Probationary officer and the Superintendent, to the appellant. In support of her contention, she relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dharampal Arora v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Another, 2006 13 SCC 593 and Union of India & Others v. Gyan Chand Chattar., 2009 12 SCC 78 Smt. Siddique further submits that till date, even the 50% of the of the difference of pay of the post of Superintendent and Probationary Officer has not been paid to the appellant.