Baldev Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3300 of 2016 • Baldev Singh S/o Late Bhuvan Singh, Aged About 61 Years Occupation Vehicle Drive, Tribal Department Durg, Civil & Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh R/o House No 41, Kelaadi, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development Department New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh

3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Durg, Inquiry Officer Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Bhardwaj, Advocate For State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. GA on advance copy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 01/08/2016 Heard.

1.

Challenge is to the impugned order dated 29.10.2015, by which, while imposing penalty, though the period of suspension has been directed to be counted for pension purposes, salary of that period has been directed to be withheld with non-cumulative effect. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the part of the penalty order, by which all consequential / monetary benefits payable to the petitioner upon revocation of suspension is denied, is illegal. He submits that the enquiry was continued for three years without any fault on the part of the petitioner. It is also argued that the respondent-authority has imposed penalty

withholding one increment that too without cumulative effect, therefore, non-payment of salary is uncalled for. 3.

The grievance of the petitioner is to be decided by the appellate authority. It is for the appellate authority to consider the challenge made to that part of the penalty imposed by which treatment has been given to period of suspension in a manner not acceptable to the petitioner.

4.

Reserving liberty to challenge that part of the order impugned dated 29.10.2015, by which, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved, before the appellate authority, this petition is finally disposed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra