A.K.PANDEY Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 25/6/2011 whereby respondent No. 2 imposed punishment of withholding his three increments with cumulative effect as also against the order dtd. 1/3/2011 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Teacher in the year 1987 and he joined service on 13/3/1987. During the service, after getting permission, the petitioner obtained certificate of post graduate (M.A. in English) from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh). On 3/8/1996, the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer. However, vide order dtd. 15/5/1997, his promotion order dtd. 3/8/1996 was cancelled on the ground that the certificate/qualification of the petitioner of post graduate (M.A. in English) is not from recognized University, and consequently, he was reverted to the post of Upper Division Teacher. Subsequently, without recovery order, the petitioner deposited the difference amount of Rs.7100.00 by challan on 13/3/2007 as his promotion order was cancelled. The petitioner passed the examination of Post Graduation (M.A. in English) after obtaining due permission from the Deputy Director Public Instructions, Durg from a recognised university i.e. Pandit Ravishankar University, Raipur in the year 1998 with 3rd Division. However, after revaluation the petitioner was graded 2nd Division. Thereafter, in the year 1998 he was promoted to the post of Lecturer.

(3.) The Deputy Director Public Instructions Durg issued a letter to the petitioner regarding Departmental Enquiry on 6/5/1998 and issued charge sheet to the petitioner, alleging that at the time of promotion he had submitted post graduate certificate in English subject, which was not from recognised university. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted detail representation/reply before Joint Director on 25/5/1998. After that, no action was taken against the petitioner by the Respondent Authorities, meaning thereby that they were satisfied with the reply of the petitioner. However, on 29/11/2008 the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh issued a letter to the petitioner regarding proposed Departmental Enquiry in respect of five charges, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Being not satisfied with the petitioner 's reply, by letter dtd. 21/4/2009, the District Education Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 22/6/2011 the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report in which charges No. 1, 2 and 4 were found to be proved. Thereafter, vide letter dtd. 11/5/2011 the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and in turn, the petitioner submitted his reply to the same. Consequently, the Respondent Authorities found that charges No. 1 and 2 were not proved against the petitioner but charge No. 4 is proved. Accordingly, vide order dtd. 25/6/2011 respondent No. 2 imposed punishment of withholding of three increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect.