SIDDHANATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) The writ petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 17.1.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 by which respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of ?29302/- as a consequence of charge having been proved in departmental enquiry held against him.

(3.) Mr.N.Naha Roy, learned counsel for legal representative of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector in Nagar Panchayat and thereafter he was consciously posted on the post of In-charge Chief Municipal Officer till his date of retirement and the impugned order of recovery has been passed finding him guilty while he was working as In-charge, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pithora in between 27.12.1995 to 30.5.1997. He would make two folds submissions, firstly, the writ petitioner was originally holding the post of Revenue Inspector which is post specified under Section 94(4) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1961') and secondly, though he was working as In-charge Chief Municipal Officer, but he was originally holding the post of Revenue Inspector, therefore, his appointing authority will be concerned Municipality within the meaning of Rule 51 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1968') and therefore, the State Government has no power and jurisdiction to issue an order of recovery under Rule 10(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1966'). Even otherwise, there is no finding in the impugned order dated 14.1.2014 (Annexure P-1) that loss has been caused by the petitioner to the Municipal Council by his negligence or breach of order as required under Rule 10(iii) of the Rules of 1966, as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.