Vimal Singh Jurry v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5998 of 2021 • Vimal Singh Jurry S/o Shri G.R. Jurry, Aged About 45 Years Working As SubEngineer, At Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda (Pakhanjur) (Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, R.E.S. Division Kanker) Posted In Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda, Tahsil - Pakhanjur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, (R.E.S. Division), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Officer Of The Development Commissioner Vikash Bhavan, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Uttar Bastar Kanker, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri J.N.Nande, Advocate For State :

Shri Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 27/10/2021 Heard.

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 07/06/2019, finally a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been passed which amounts to major punishment under Rule 10 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules of 1966') and

such punishment is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the order of imposition of major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is appealable under Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966. 2.

In that view of the matter, Shri Nande submits that he may be allowed to file appeal but there is delay in filing the petition as they had been repeatedly making representations.

3.

Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner may file appeal within 30 days from today before the appellate authority and the appellate authority shall do well to decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 1966 expeditiously.

The petitioner is at liberty to make representation to the respondent authority for release of his salary from June 2018 to August 2018 and the respondent authority shall consider and decide the representation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- ( Sanjay K. Agrawal ) Judge Deepti