J.K.Bhatpahari v. State And ORS.

$v NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WPS No. 4779 of 2005 o J.K.Bhatpahari ---- Petitioner

Versus

o State And Ors.

Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents-State z Shri SP Kale, Dy. AG with Shri Arvind Dubey, PL for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 02/05/201 7 1.

Petitioner would assail the order of punishment Annexure No.4, passed by the Collector, Raipur on 05.04.1999 and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur on 24.04.2001, whereby petitioner has been visited with penalty stoppage one increment without cumulative effect with further direction that the period of suspension shall be counted for the purposes of pension only and for the said period he shall not be entitled for any other amount over and above the amount of subsistence allowance.

.

Although, learned counsel for petitioner has assailed findings recorded by the enquiry officer as confirmed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, however, the same is not open to challenge in view law laid down by Supreme Court in matter General Manager (Operations) State Bank India Another Vs.

R.

Periyasamy'.

.

Having heard Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri SP Kale, learned Dy. AG for the State, this Court does not find any such patent error of law or jurisdiction committed by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority while conducting departmental enquiry imposing punishment, however, only one aspect of the matter which is required to be considered is that whether direction by disciplinary authority that the period of suspension from 26th March, 1997 till January1999 shall only be counted for pension and not for other purposes needs attention of this Court.

.

If the above said direction is worked against the petitioner, he will lose his seniority for the period of suspension, however, show-cause notice for the proposed punishment issued to the petitioner has not referred to the said part of the punishment, therefore, prima facie, if the said punishment was never in contemplation in the mind of the disciplinary authority at the time of issuance of show-cause notice, the same ought not to have been imposed. lt is not a case where the disciplinary authority has passed the order only for the purposes of regularizing period of suspension because the same x could have been done by mentioning that the period of suspension shall be treated to be on duty but the petitioner shall not be entitled for any other s amount over above amount subsistence allowance already received by him.

Strangely, instead of passing such order, the disciplinary authority has passed an order which would affect petitioner's seniority.

Considering issue from another angle if the petitioner remained in suspension from March, 1997 to January, 1999 and the said period shall not be treated for any other purpose than for the purposes of pension, he may 7 WAL 7/,ie W i (2015) 3 SCC 101

Jose the increment for this period, whereas the punishment imposed on him is for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. if both the parts order punishment is implemented against petitioner, imposed by the discipiinary authority.

part. While maintaining the order imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, it is directed. that period suspension shall be treated to be on duty and the petitioner shall not be entitled for any amount over above amount subsistence allowance received by him during the said period. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu