SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was in army from 1991 to 2007 at the post of Havaldar (Clerk), Madras Engineering Group and centre, Banglore. The petitioner took voluntary retirement from army in November, 2007. Thereafter, in February 2009 the petitioner had joined the State Service and he was appointed on the post of AG- III, District Sainik Welfare Office, Jagdalpur (CG). On 15/6/2012, a complaint was made against Late Suryakant Verma and the petitioner by one Ram Murti Pandey alleging demand of money from relatives of died or retired soldiers on account of . In alleged complaint allegation has been leveled that the petitioner and Late Suryakant Verma had demanded money from 6 persons. Vide covering memo dtd. 23/6/2012, the Deputy Collector (District Welfare Officer) sought clarification. The petitioner on 27/6/2012 submitted its clarification and demanded all relevant documents, but the same were not supplied to him and ex-parte primary inquiry was conducted by Deputy Collector, Bastar (District Welfare Officer) and submitted its report dtd. 19/7/2012 to the Collector. Upon receipt of the show notice, Suryakant Verma allegedly committed suicide on 03/07/2012. The petitioner was also transferred to the District Sainik Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. Thereafter again show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28/09/2012 which was replied by the petitioner on 09/10/2012 and again a prayer was made with reference to earlier reply dtd. 27/6/2012 and the petitioner demanded the requisite documents, but same were not supplied. Without supplying the requisite documents, all of sudden the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21/12/2012 and was attached in the office of District Welfare Office Jagdalpur from the Office of District Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. On 17/1/2013 the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. On 28/01/2013 moved yet another application for grant of relevant documents to enable the petitioner to make an effective reply. The petitioner specifically asked for the complaints and the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry which made the basis of the charge sheet, but the same were not supplied. The petitioner was provided with some of the documents but most of them were not provided in the name of not being in the office. On 28/1/2013 the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought as many as 18 documents, out of which only 10 were supplied. The petitioner on 08/07/2013 once again made a request for providing relevant documents and specifically stated that mere cross examination would not be sufficient opportunity, but the same went in vain. The departmental inquiry was completed against the petitioner without proper opportunity. The petitioner on 05/08/2013 replied to the enquiry report and objected to the erroneous findings of the enquiry officer. On 18/9/2013 the respondent no.3 served a final notice to the petitioner proposing the major penalty of termination from service. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 27/9/2013. The petitioner was thereafter terminated from service by the order dtd. 11/10/2013. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal challenging the decision of the authority. The appeal of the petitioner was kept unnecessarily pending without a single hearing. The petitioner moved a representation before the State Government on 25/06/2015, but no action was taken on the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner made yet another representation on 28/12/2016 to the respondent No.1. Ultimately, the respondent no.1 has passed the final order dtd. 15/05/2017 and has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eye of law. The petitioner cannot be punished on the basis of misconduct not committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been imposed major punishment without any material against the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not act properly while not considering the fact that the petitioner has not demanded money from any of the victim and no material was considered by the enquiry officer and the enquiry report has been submitted on the basis of surmises of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority did not care to give reasons as mandated vide Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. The petitioner was not supplied with the relevant documents and the petitioner has been condemned unheard. The appellate authority did not mention any reason while passing the appeal rejection order. The impugned order is arbitrary and against all canons of administrative and service jurisprudence. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhagat Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 454, Union of India and others vs Gyan Chand Chhattar, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78, Subedar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 765 and the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Kori vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2016) SCC Online (Chh) 295 and Lalit Pratap Singh vs Union of India, reported in (2022) SCC Online (Chh) 739.