Rajesh Yadu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.1430 of 2018 Rohit Kumar Dubey S/o Late Gendlalji Dubey, Aged about 54 years, Posted as Senior Assistant, Office of the District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG)
5. District Marketing Officer, MARKFED, Balod, District Balod (CG) WPS No.1433 of 2018 Mohanlal Gangboir S/o Shri Manthir Lal Gangboir, Aged about 61 years, Posted as Area Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, Paddy Procurement Center, Hathband, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG) Cooperative Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)
3. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation-880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
5. District Marketing Officer, MARKFED, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) WPS No.1459 of 2018 Faizuddin Qureshi S/o Late K.D. Qureshi, aged about 58 years, posted as Field Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, Balod, District Balod (CG)
WPS No.1506 of 2018 Mohanlal Gangboir S/o Shri Manthir Lal Gangboir, Aged about 61 years, Posted as Area Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, Paddy Procurement Center, Hathband, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG) Cooperative Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)
2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)
3. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation-880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
5. District Marketing Officer, MARKFED, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) WPS No.1507 of 2018 Faizuddin Qureshi S/o Late K.D. Qureshi, aged about 58 years, Posted as Field Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, Balod, District Balod (CG) WPS No.1510 of 2018 Rajesh Yadu S/o Late K.R. Yadu, Aged about 59 years, Posted as Senior Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, R/o Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, District Durg (CG)
And WPS No.1511 of 2018 Itwari Ram Kanwar S/o Jeevrakhan Lal Kanwar, Aged about 43 years, posted as Field Assistant, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation Dongargadh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG)
5. District Marketing Officer, MARKFED, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) For Petitioners :
Mr.Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State :
Mr.D.R.Minz, Dy.G.A.
For Chhattisgarh State :
Mr.Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Marketing Federation Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 12/02/2018
1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these batch of writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation after full-fledged departmental enquiry inflicted penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect against the petitioners. Against the said orders, appeals before the
Managing Director of the said Federation under Regulation 30 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Vipnan Sangh Sewa Niyam, 2007 were filed. By the impugned orders, orders passed by the disciplinary authority have been affirmed by the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved against the said orders, these batch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein questioning the same as unsustainable and bad in law.
3. Mr.Vikas Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority are unsustainable and bad in law. They would further submit that number of grounds have been raised by the petitioners in support of their appeals that they are not liable for shortage of paddy as they have already been exempted by the State Government and there is no scientific method for calculating the shortage of paddy and this fact has been admitted by the respondent-Federation in the memo dated 21.11.2017. They would also submit that the appellate authority while passing the impugned orders has not considered any of the grounds raised by the petitioners and simply agreed with the finding of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Federation, would support the impugned orders and submit that norms as prescribed by the Union of India and the State Government are being followed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.
6. A careful perusal of the impugned orders would show that number of grounds as stated above have been raised by the petitioners before the appellate authority, which have been duly recorded in the orders dated 27.9.2017, 3.10.2017, 6.10.2017, 9.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 respectively by the appellate authority, but none of the grounds have been considered on its own merit and the appellate authority has simply dismissed the appeals.
7. It is correct to say that several grounds were raised by the petitioners to question the order of the disciplinary authority inflicting penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, but none of the grounds were considered by the appellate authority. In fact, in appeals preferred by the petitioners against order inflicting penalty, the appellate authority was required to consider (a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules have been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of such Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, but it has not been considered and nonspeaking and unreasoned order has been passed. The grounds raised by the petitioners in appeals have been duly recorded in the impugned orders, but have not been considered by the
appellate authority.
8. In view of above, the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority are hereby set aside. The matters are remitted to the appellate authority to consider each and every ground raised by the petitioners in appeals afresh and thereafter to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after hearing the parties within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to raise additional grounds, if any, supported by the documents, which shall be considered by the appellate authority. The petitioners are also at liberty to move an application for grant of stay within 7 days from today, which shall be decided by the appellate authority within one month from its receipt and for the period of one month, no recovery shall be made against the petitioners.
9. The writ petitions allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/-