ANITA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dtd. 17/4/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, by which the penalty has already been decided by the department against the provision of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Act, 1966 without issuing show cause notice upon the proposed punishment. So, this petition is sought by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, there was tender for purchasing of pre-school kits for the year 2012-13 and the committee was constituted, whose head was the Collector, whereas the charge to the effect has been leveled against her that the petitioner being a member as a Secretary of the purchase committee did not purchase the pre-school kits from the lowest bidder. A decision was taken by respondent No. 2 to constitute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and notice dtd. 8/10/2015 was issued along with the charge-sheet and other relevant documents to the petitioner. After receiving the said notice, on 23/10/2015 the petitioner seeking time for submitting reply of the said notice upon the departmental enquiry. After reminder notice dtd. 7/11/2015 issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner had replied to the the reminder notice on 16/11/2015, copy of which are collectively filed as Annexure P/4. The department was not satisfied with the reply of petitioner and therefore, D.E. instituted against the petitioner and evidence of witnesses have been recorded between 20/7/2016 to 4/8/2016. It has been further contended that the Presenting Officer below the rank of the petitioner has been appointed and the said officer has given brief of the matter to the petitioner. After this brief, petitioner has made reply to the department on 21/12/2016, in which the main contention of the petitioner was that in the entire proceedings for the purchase of pre-school kits, she was alone not responsible. Thereafter, the impugned order/notice dtd. 17/4/2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has given the reply of the said impugned order on 20/4/2017, wherein it was mentioned that as per the provision of the Act, 1966 if the Enquiry Officer has made any opinion about the charges leveled against the delinquent employee and evidence laid by the parties, will send this opinion and prima facie holding the guilt of the delinquent employee to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority, thereafter going through the opinion of the enquiry officer will issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee, so as to why not the proposed penalty be imposed upon him or her, but after the issuance of brief of departmental enquiry, there is no communication to the petitioner and suddenly the impugned notice has been served upon the petitioner, which in fact is imposition of penalty, which is bad in law. Hence, this present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order/notice dtd. 17/4/2017 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, arbitrary, improper and incorrect, hence it is liable to be set aside, the impugned order and procedure applied by the respondent authorities is against the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (often referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1966), particularly, against the Rule 45 of the Act, 1966, the method adopted by the respondents is against the Memo No. C-26/92/3/1 dtd. 20/8/1992 and against the settled provisions of Rule 14 (23), 15 (1), 15 (3) of the Act, 1966 as well as the principles of natural justice. The impugned order dtd. 17/4/2017 shows the prejudice mind of the respondent authorities for not constituting the D.E. against other members of the Committee as well as deciding the punishment without going through report of enquiry officer. As per the provision of the Act, 1966, if the enquiry officer has made any opinion about the charges leveled against the delinquent employee and evidence laid by the parties, will send this opinion and prima facie holding the guilt of the delinquent employee to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, after going thorough the opinion of the enquiry officer will issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee, so as why not the proposed penalty be imposed upon him or her, but after the issuance of brief of departmental enquiry, there is no communication to the petitioner and suddenly the impugned notice has been served upon the petitioner, which in fact is imposition of penalty, which is bad in law, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Rajit Singh,(2022) 15 SCC 254. & in the matter of Union of India vs. E. Bashyan,1988 AIR 1000.