SAJJANLAL CHAKRADHARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Declining interference with the order of termination of appellant from his services vide impugned order dated 27.02.2020 passed in WPS No. 2140/2009 is the subject matter of this appeal.

(2.) Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II on 17.10.1994. When the appellant was posted as 1st Civil Judge, Class II and Judicial Magistrate, I-Class (JMFC), Dantewada, some complaints were made against him by the employee namely Mr. Jitendra Mahapatra, Reader to Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada and one Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate, stating therein that the appellant was abusing in filthy language, wrote objectionable language in the Court record, along with other allegations. Based on the complaint, appellant was put under suspension vide order dated 01.09.2005 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. Charge-sheet was issued to him, after completion of the departmental enquiry, in accordance with law, enquiry report was placed before the Full Court. Upon going through the entire records of the departmental enquiry, Full Court recommended for termination of services of the appellant. Based on the recommendation order Annexure P-1 dated 16.11.2007 was passed by order and in name of the Governor, dismissing the appellant from services with a disqualification for future employment. Against the order of punishment, appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1966 (for short "CCS Rule, 1966") which came to be dismissed on 22.10.2008. Against the dismissal of the departmental appeal, appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of punishment dated 16.11.2007 and order passed in appeal dated 21.10.2008. Learned Single Judge, upon considering the material placed on record dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-1).

(3.) Mr. Ramkumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration entire grounds raised in the writ petition, hence, order Annexure A-1 is not sustainable. He submits that very specific ground was raised with regard to the authority of the Chief Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs Department, issuing the order of dismissal from services but that has not been considered. He further submits that the appellant has further raised a ground that the order of termination from services could not have been passed by the authority as the Principle Secretary who is a Sub-ordinate Officer to the appointing authority of the appellant. Mr. Tiwari also argued that before termination of the service of appellant, Public Service Commission has not been consulted, hence there is violation of Rule 15 of CCS Rule, 1966 and also violative to Article 320(3) of Constitution of India. It is also argued that the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of false and fabricated complaint, and submits that the impugned order to be set aside and appropriate order(s) be passed.