KUMAIT RAM SHANDILYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8th May, 2003 (Annexure P/14) whereby the State Government, in exercise of its power under the provisions of Rule 10 (8) of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966') removed the petitioner from service, and also, the order dated 8th August, 2003 (Annexure P/15) whereby, posting of the petitioner, as incharge, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha, District Bastar, was also cancelled. Indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner, while working as Block Development Officer, Balrampur, District Surguja, was placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry on the allegation of serious financial irregularities, by order dated 29th August, 1992 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter, his headquarter was changed to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Bilaspur. The petitioner was thereafter, served with a show cause notice on 5th October, 1992 (Annexure P/4) stating therein that he has failed to produce the progress report in respect of Indira Awas Yojna, Jawahar Rojgar Yojna and Jeevandhara Yojna for the period upto the year 1992 by 2nd September, 1992 to the Collector, Surguja. The same was since not supplied to the Collector, Surguja, the show cause notice, as aforestated was issued as to why a punishment of withdrawal of one increment without cumulative effect be not imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27th November, 1992 (Annexure P/5), stating therein that he has given the information to the Clerk, D.R.D.A. on 31st August, 1992. In the impugned order dated 8th May, 2003, it was stated that a charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 27th June, 1992, and after receiving his reply to the show cause notice, the Deputy Collector, District Surguja was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Ambikapur was appointed as Presenting Officer under Rule 14(b) and (c) of the Rules, 1966, respectively, in the order passed on 1st June, 1993.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was noticed on 14th June, 1996 to appear on 18th June, 1996 (Annexure P/7) before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner filed a letter dated 8th July, 1996 (Annexure P/8) addressed to the Departmental Enquiry Officer, requesting for supply of charge sheet, which according to the petitioner was never served on the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 24th September, 1997 (Annexure P/11), ex parte, against the petitioner holding all the six charges for which the petitioner was never informed, as proved. A second show cause notice wherein the petitioner vide letter dated 31st March, 1998/2nd April, 1998 (Annexure P/11) requested for personal hearing, stating therein also that he was not served with any charge sheet. Consequent thereupon, the impugned order was passed. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 23rd December, 2005 (Annexure REJ-1). Thus, this petition.

(3.) Shri Baraik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the whole enquiry was vitiated and consequent thereupon, imposition of major penalty of removal from service was also bad and the same deserves to be quashed. Shri Baraik would further submit that non-supply of charge sheet is contrary to the constitutional provisions as well as provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966, which is mandatory. Shri Baraik would next submit that the State has not even obtained the consent of the State Public Service Commission, as it is mandatory in case of Class II officers and the petitioner was a Class II officer.