LAWS(CHH)-2024-2-3

CHANDADEVI SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On February 16, 2024
Chandadevi Shrivastava Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 13/3/2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3/CMHO, Narayanpur whereby she has been denied salary for a period from June, 2002 to February, 2003.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner is working as ANM under Primary Health Center, Orcha. On 8/9/2003 a charge sheet was issued to her alleging that she is absent from headquarters Kohkameta and is residing and doing work from Narayanpur. Salary of the petitioner from May, 2002 to February, 2003 was withheld and departmental enquiry was initiated. The petitioner in her detailed reply denied the allegations, however, after departmental enquiry, on 12/8/2010 (Annexure P/4) an order passed withholding one increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect. Since after departmental enquiry, there was no order for withholding salary, the petitioner requested the respondent authorities for grant of withheld salary from May 2002 to February 2003 but the same was denied to her stating that during the said period, she was absent and this charge has been proved in the enquiry. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unconstitutional and not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order is bad as in the departmental enquiry, there is no order of withholding salary of the petitioner and only there is order to withhold one increment without cumulative effect. Even if for the sake of argument, any charge was found proved, then also only final order passed in the enquiry will be operative and not the other observations made therein. In her reply, the petitioner had also requested for grant of withheld salary but the same was not considered. Therefore, the impugned order/letter dtd. 13/3/2012 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be granted the relief claimed in this petition.