M. RAM PRASAD RAO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of fact and law is involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) In a regular departmental enquiry held against the two petitioners herein and two other employees, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2 herein) vide order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) inflicted minor penalty under Rule 10(iv) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short 'Rules of 1966') withholding three annual increments with non-cumulative effect. The petitioners did not call in question the order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) and it had thus attained finality, but thereafter, vide order dated 02/06/2010 (Annexure P-1), the Disciplinary Authority cancelled its earlier order (Annexure P-6) of withholding three annual increments of the petitioners with non-cumulative effect and substituted it with the order of recovery of Rs. 7,50,000/- from each of the petitioners, which has now been called in question by the petitioners by way of both these writ petitions.

(3.) Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for petitioner in WPS No. 3267/2010, as well as Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for petitioner in WPS No. 3268/2010, both would make a solitary submission that the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) has not been conferred with the power of review under the Rules of 1966 as it has only been conferred upon the Appellate Authority under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of 1966, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) could not have cancelled its earlier order dated 15/01/2009 (Annexure P-6) inflicting minor penalty upon the petitioners withholding three annual increments with non-cumulative effect and then it could not have substituted it with the impugned order dated 02/06/2010 (Annexure P-1) passed for recovery to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- from each of the petitioners under Rule 10(iii) of the Rules of 1966 and that too, without recording any finding that such an amount is recoverable from the petitioners because of the loss caused to the State Government for negligence or breach of order on the part of the petitioners as required under Rule 10(iii) of the Rules of 1966, as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.