B.B. Shukla v. Man. Dir. State Ware Housing Cor.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1297 of 2012 B.B. Shukla, S/o Shri J.P. Shukla, Aged about 41 years, Presently working as Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Jagdalpur, R/o Faizalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, N-3, Avanti Vihar, Near Railway Crossing, Mahasamund Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent WPS No. 4745 of 2011 A.K. Gupta, S/o Late T.P. Gupta, Aged 46 years, Presently posted as Sub Engineer, State Warehousing Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Imlipara, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, N-3, Avanti Vihar, Near Railway Crossing, Mahasamund Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

WPS No. 1296 of 2012 A.Q. Qureshi, S/o Shri A.G. Qureshi, Aged about 52 years, Presently working as Sub-Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, N-3, Avanti Vihar, Near Railway Crossing, Mahasamund Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent For Petitioners :- Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Anuroop Panda on behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing) 29/06/2021

1. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the three petitioners, during the pendency of these writ petitions, also preferred appeals as per the relevant rules and those appeals have been decided on 31/03/2017, 10/04/2017 and 31/03/2017,

respectively. As such, the impugned order of penalty has merged into the appellate order and the petitioners herein are required to file an appeal against the orders dismissing their appeals.

2. At this stage, Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that since the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty has been merged into the appellate order, therefore, the petitioners are required to question the order of appellate authority in accordance with law.

3. Accordingly, these three writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners to question the order of the appellate authority in accordance with law. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet