Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 January, 2024
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:3179
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6460 of 2017
Order reserved on : 19/10/2023
Order passed on : 31/01/2024
Rajendra Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Raghunandan Prasad
Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Behind Vivekanand Aashram,
Gali No. 11, Police Station- Aazad Chowk District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Urban Administration &
Development Department Mahanadi Bhwan Naya Mantralya,
Naya Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Joint Director/ Enquiry Officer Urban Administration &
Development Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam Raipur District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State/ Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Order
1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner further challenged the order dated 21.09.2017 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner was working as an Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 2 Incharge Chief Municipal Officer at Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund since 13/07/2010. Charge-sheet dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P/3) was served on the petitioner leveling 5 charges against him and he was directed to submit his reply within 15 days. Pursuant to which, petitioner filed application dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure P/4) requesting for supplying some relevant documents. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application on 07/04/2012 for the same. Subsequently, respondent authorities issued letter dated 20/04/2012 directing to furnish the documents to the petitioner. Both the letters collectively filed as Annexure P-5. On 07/07/2012 (Annexure P/6), respondent authorities again directed to furnish the documents but the said direction was not complied by the authority. Again a notice dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P/7) was issued against the petitioner for submitting his reply within 15 days failing which appropriate disciplinary action would be taken against him. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in the said enquiry, the enquiry officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner to be proved. The notice dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P/7) was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3758/2015 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2015 holding that in case the petitioner files any reply to the show cause notice it is expected from the disciplinary authority to act in accordance with law, under no circumstances the disciplinary authority will prolong the matter and it is expected from the authority concerned to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2015, petitioner sought certain documents for submitting the reply to the show cause notice and in response to which, vide letter dated 02.11.2015 (Annexure P/13), the petitioner was directed to appear in the office of the Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon and receive the necessary documents but he did not appear. Thereafter, the petitioner was again directed to appear on 09.12.2015 during the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 3 official hours and get the desired documents but again he did not appear before the concerned authority. Thereafter, again he sought certain documents under Right to Information Act vide Annexure P/14 dated 24.11.2015. Ultimately, petitioner submitted second appeal to Information Commissioner on 26.02.2016, but respondent did not provide the said documents. Thereafter, petitioner filed another petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 3176/2016 seeking direction for supply of documents needed for his defence in the pending departmental enquiry which was finally disposed of vide order dated 09/08/2016 holding that in view of the order of the State Government, the documents which have been sought by the petitioner, should be allowed for inspection to the petitioner and if the documents have been misplaced, in such cases the competent authority may take action against the persons, who are responsible for loss of documents and whatever the documents are available should be allowed to be inspected by the petitioner and thereafter the inquiry should proceed in the matter without delay and without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Thereafter, impugned order dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued terminating the petitioner. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the answering respondents which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2017. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records of the case.
10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 06/05/2017 passed by Respondent No.3 and order 21/09/2017 passed in appeal.
10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct responsible authority to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages and another consequential benefits.
10.4 Any other relief which may Hon'ble Court think fit Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 4 in the circumstances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application dated 29/10/2015 and dropped the list of documents which were necessary to defend him against the charges leveled against him. Petitioner made ample efforts to get the important documents on the basis of which he has been given charge sheet, but the authority did not supply the documents. On 02/12/2015, authority again directed respondent No. 3 to furnish the enclosed documents to the petitioner and further directed, if documents are not available in the office then what has been taken against officer and employees who are responsible for lost documents? Even then authority did not take any action those officers/employees and compelled the petitioner to submit his defence/reply. Petitioner earlier sought time in enquiry on 07.10.2015. Disciplinary authority did not want to furnish the documents for one or the other reason and merely made empty formalities. A letter dated 02/11/2015 was issued to appear in the office. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner appeared but authority did not make available the said documents. Ultimately, petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act on 24/11/2015, the authority then filed appeal before the appellate authority on 29/11/2015. Ultimately, petitioner submitted second appeal to Information Commissioner on 26/02/2016, but respondent authorities did not supply the said documents till filing of the petition. On the other hand, documents were sent to disciplinary authority to take decision against the petitioner.
Respondent authorities did not provide opportunity of hearing.
5. Petitioner filed a petition i.e WPS No. 2878/2012 whereby the Court passed an order directing the Chief Municipal Officer to make available the necessary documents as prayed by the petitioner in his representation dated 26/07/2012, within the period of 3 weeks from date of the receipt of order despite of the above direction of Court, the authority did not furnish the documents and without furnishing the above documents, the enquiry officer Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 5 submitted enquiry report against petitioner holding him guilty. It is mentioned in the enquiry report by letter dated 18/09/2015 that one Shri Krishna Kumar Kurre Accountant submitted that in absence of petitioner, Sub Divisional Officer of Mahasamund Mr. Motwani came with the enquiry team to Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon and seized all the documents, without giving acknowledgment. It is further mentioned that without any cogent documents enquiry Officer submitted report against the petitioner and provided 15 days' time to file reply to the enquiry report. Petitioner continuously filed application for providing the necessary documents (Annexure P/19), but despite of several efforts, respondent authorities did not furnish the documents and submitted the enquiry report which is absolutely arbitrary and high- handed action of the enquiry Officer & Respondent authority. Enquiry report was sent to the Petitioner by letter dated 18/09/2015. and the same was received by the petitioner on 29/09/2015, but the letter dated 18.08.2015 unfolded the facts that the enquiry Officer sent the enquiry report to respondent authorities on 04/08/2015. The letters dated 18/08/2015 and 04/08/2015 along with the list clearly depict that bills are not available, even then the loss of Rs 75,50,038/- has been assessed, are ab-initio illegal. The appellate authority did not consider any ground taken by the petitioner and Mr. Rohit Yadav who proposed to dismiss the services of the petitioner, heard the appeal against the order of dismissal dated 06/05/2017. Therefore, it is clear that the punishing authority himself heard the appeal also which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The services of petitioner were governed by the Nagar Palik Adhiniyam 1956 and got terminated under Nagar Palika Sewa (Karyapalan) Niyam 1974. Therefore, the order of dismissal is ab-initio illegal. The enquiry report is contrary to the fact and material available before the enquiry officer. The enquiry report is perverse. The Enquiry officer performed the duty of prosecution officer also. He cross examined the witness. He did not follow the proper Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 6 procedure in the enquiry proceeding. Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal.
6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others in 1999 AIR SCW 129, Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510, order dated 18.09.2013 passed by Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. Bank of India and others in Writ Petition No. 1647 (SB) of 2010, in the case of Simanchala Das Vs. Managing Director, Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited and others, (2015) 2 CLR 594 & in the matter of Pramod Kumar Singh Sishodia Vs. State of U.P., (2017) 155 FLR 75.
7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no allegation of malafide as also the authority who issued the charge-sheet. In this case, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry against the him and after completion of the departmental enquiry, an inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer in which the petitioner was found guilty of financial irregularities and illegalities while acting as CMO, Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon. In order to follow the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer vide notice dated 18/09/2015 (Annexure P/7). On bare perusal of the inquiry report, it would be evident that the petitioner was permitted to inspect the desired documents. During departmental enquiry, the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing to adduce evidences in his support. In the departmental enquiry, the inquiry officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner to be proved. Disciplinary authority complied the direction of the this Court's order dated 15/10/2015 passed in WP (S) No. 3758/2015. The petitioner again Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 7 sought certain documents for submitting the reply to the show cause notice and in response to which, vide letter dated 02/11/2015 (Annexure P/13), the petitioner was directed to appear in the office of the Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon and receive the inspected desired documents which was duly received by the petitioner on 19/11/2015, but, the petitioner did not appear. Thereafter, the petitioner was again directed to appear on 09/12/2015 during the official hours and get the desired documents inspected and thereafter receive the same, which was received by the petitioner on 22/12/2015, but the petitioner did not appear before the concerned authority and again sought certain documents under Right To Information Act vide Annexure P/14. Thereafter, he filed another writ petition before this Court i.e. W.P. (S) No. 3176/2016 seeking direction for supply of documents which was finally disposed of vide order dated 09/08/2016 holding that in view of the order of the State Government, the documents which have been sought by the petitioner, should be allowed for inspection to the petitioner and if the documents have been misplaced, in such cases the competent authority may take action against the persons, who are responsible for loss of documents and whatever the documents are available should be allowed to the inspected by the petitioner and thereafter the inquiry should proceed in the matter without delay and without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Petitioner was solely responsible for any irregularities or illegalities and since in the Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, a huge financial irregularities and illegalities were committed by the petitioner for which he, being the drawing and disbursing authority, was solely responsible as per the provisions of Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Lekha Niyam 1971 and un-control over his subordinate employees, the records and documents as sought and desired by the petitioner were not maintained properly in the Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon for which the petitioner was solely responsible. In addition to the petitioner, the erring employees were also punished by the answering Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 8 respondents. As per the enquiry report, the petitioner was found guilty of financial irregularities and illegalities thereby causing a financial loss of Rs. 75,50,038/- to the Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon and looking to the gravity of the charges the petitioner was not found suitable to remain in the post and accordingly after obtaining necessary permission / approval from the competent authority, the impugned order dated 06/05/2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued terminating the petitioner from service under the provisions contained in the Rules, 1973. Against the impugned order dated 06/05/2017 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner preferred an appeal and Appellate Authority after considering all the documents and records, passed the impugned order dated 21/09/2017 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Thus, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
9. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was working as In- charge Chief Municipal Officer at Nagar Panchayat Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund since 13/07/2010 and on 24.12.2011, petitioner was placed under suspension. It is also not disputed that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and by impugned order dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P/1), petitioner was terminated from the service and against the impugned order dated 06.05.2017, he filed the appeal which was also dismissed by impugned order dated 21.09.2017.
10.Main grievance of the petitioner is that during whole enquiry, essential documents were not supplied to him. Petitioner filed writ petition i.e. WP(S) No. 2878/2012 and this Court vide order dated 15.10.2012 disposed of the said petition with certain directions. Thereafter, he filed writ petition being WPS No. 3758 of 2015 before this Court and operative para of the said petition is as under:-
"Considering the submission made by the parties the present Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 9 petition is disposed of.
In case the petitioner files any reply to the show cause notice it is expected from the disciplinary authority to act in accordance with law. Under no circumstances the disciplinary authority will prolong the matter and it is expected from the authority concerned to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to act strictly in accordance with law."
11. Again petitioner filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 3176 of 2016 and this Court in the said petition vide order dated 09.08.2016 observed in para 3 as under:-
3. In view of the order of the State Government, the documents which have been sought by the petitioner, should be allowed for inspection to the petitioner. If the documents have been misplaced, in such cases, the competent authority may take action against the persons, who are responsible for loss of documents. Whatever documents are available should be allowed to be inspected by the petitioner and thereafter, inquiry should proceed in the matter without delay and without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.
12. Some relevant portion of the equiry proceeding dated 05.12.2014 reads as under:-
vipkjh lsod] Jh jktsUnz izlkn 'kekZ] rRdkyhu izHkkjh eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r rqexkao mifLFkr gq,A vipkjh lsod Jh 'kekZ us i= izLrqr dj voxr djk;k gS fd os fnukad 01-12-2014 dks uxj iapk;r rqexkao esa vfHkys[kksa dh izfr izkIr djus mifLFkr gq,] fdUrq Mhty dz; uLrh ts-lh-ch- fufonk uLrh ,ao vfxze lek;kstu uLrh miyC/k ugha djk;h xbZA Jh d`".kdkar dqjsZ rRdkyhu izHkkjh ys[kkiky }kjk fyf[kr esa tkudkjh nh xbZ gS fd Jh 'kekZ dh vuqifLFkfr esa rRdkyhu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh egkleqan Jh ,u-,l- eksVokuh ds usr`Ro esa vk;s tkap ny }kjk uxj iapk;r rqexkao dh leLr ufLr;k ns;d lfgr tCr dj ys tk;k x;k ijUrq mldh ikorh gesa ugh nh xbZA Jh d`".kdkar dqjsZ ¼lgk;d xzsM&03½ rRdkyhu ys[kkiky uxj iapk;r rqexkao us Hkh bl dk;kZy; dks i= }kjk voxr djk;k gS fd os fnukad 01-12-2014 dks uxj iapk;r rqexkao esa mifLFkr gq, FksA Jh jktsUnz izlkn 'kekZ rRdkyhu eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r rqexkao }kjk pkgs x;s nLrkost Mhty dz; uLrh ts-lh-ch- Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 10 fufonk uLrh ,ao vfxze lek;kstu uLrh uxj iapk;r rqexkao dk;kZy; esa ugha ik;kx;kA rRdkyhu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh Jh ,u-,l- eksVokuh] egkleqan ds usr`Ro esa tkap ny }kjk uxj iapk;r rqexkao ds leLr ufLr;ksa ,ao ns;d rRdkyhu eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh Jh jktsUnz izlkn 'kekZ dh vuqifLFkfr esa ys tk;k x;k FkkA ftldh gesa dksbZ ikorh ugha nh xbZ FkhA os fnukad 02-07-2013 ls uxj iapk;r rqexkao ls dk;ZeqDr gksdj uxj ikfydk ifj"kn cykSnkcktkj esa dk;Zjr gSA izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh] eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r rqexkao dks Jh d`".kdkar dqjsZ rRdkdkyhu ys[kkiky] uxj iapk;r rqexkao ds i= esa mYysf[kr vfHkys[k vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh egkleqan ds dk;kZy; ls izkIr dj mudh Nk;kizfr dh ,d izfr vipkjh lsod Jh jktsUnz izlkn 'kekZ rFkk ,d izfr bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k le{k esa fn;s x;sA lkFk gh mUgsa i= Hkh fy[kk tk jgk gS rFkk izfrfyfi vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh egkleqan dks eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r rqexkao dks vfHkys[k miyC/k djkus ds fy, nh tk jgh gSA izdj.k esa vkxkeh lquokbZ frfFk 12-12-2014 dks nksigj 12-00 cts fu;r dh tkrh gSA
13. Relevant portion of the ordersheet dated 07.01.2015 reads as under:-
bl dk;kZy; ds v}Z'kkldh; i= dza- 3341 fnukad 15-12-2014 ds laca/k esa dysDVj egkleqan rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh egkleqan ls uxj iapk;r rqexkao ds tkap gsrq izkir fd;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dks ykSVkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k FkkA fdUrq bl laca/k esa muls dksbZ vfHkys[k@tkudkjh izkIr ugha gqbZ gSA izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh] eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r rqexkao us Jh ,u-,l- eksVokuh] rRdkyhu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdjh] egkleqan ds orZeku esa cykSnkcktkj esa inLFk gksus ls muls uxj iapk;r rqexkao ds vfHkys[k ds laca/k esa tkudkjh izkIr dj foHkkxh; tkap esa izLrqr djus gsrq vkxkeh frfFk nsus dk le{k esa ekSf[kd fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA vr% izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh] eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r rqexkao ds fuosnu vuqlkj Jh eksVokuh vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] cykSnkcktkj ls uxj iapk;r rqexkao ds ewy vfHkys[kksa dh tkudkjh izkIr dj izLrqr djus gsrq vkxkeh lquokbZ frfFk 23-01-2015 dks nksigj 12-00 cts fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA
14.It is also objected by the petitioner that Mr. Rohit Yadav who proposed the termination of the petitioner, heard the appeal against the order of dismissal which is against the service jurisprudence.
15. In the case of Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, AIR 2016 SC 2510, Hon'ble Apex Court held some principles as under:
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 11 "(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.
(ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.
(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer.
Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.
(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any."
16.In the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. Bank of India and others, (2013) 8 ADJ 375 in Writ Petition No. 1647 (SB) of 2010 decided on 18.09.2013, Allahabad High Court held in para 30 as under:-
30. It is settled principle that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, the copies of material must be supplied to the party against whom such an enquiry is held. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did not consider this aspect of the matter and expressed their concurrence to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, without applying their independent and free mind. The assertion of the Bank that there is no violation of any statutory provision or principles of natural justice while conducting the disciplinary proceeding is wholly misconceived and is rejected. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner failed to appreciate the fact that the Enquiry Officer at the back of the petitioner had proved charges without Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 12 affording reasonable opportunity to controvert the same.
Therefore, the order of Appellate Authority is bad in law and cannot be sustained.
17.In the light of above decisions, it is clear that the petitioner sought for supplying of the documents from the very beginning during the departmental enquiry and after enquiry report also, but the said documents were never supplied to him. Vide order dated 09.08.2016 passed in WPS No. 3176/2016, this Court observed that if the documents have been misplaced in such case cases, the competent authority may take action against the persons who are responsible for loss of documents. But it is clear from the enquiry report that documents were never supplied to the petitioner. Relevant portion of order sheet dated 23.01.2015 reads as under:-
प्रस्तुतकर्ता अधिकारी, मुख्य नगर पालिका अधिकारी, नगर पंचायत तुमगांव ने बताया की श्री कृष्णकांत कुर्रे, सहायक ग्रेड-03 तत्कालीन प्रभारी लेखापाल, नगर पंचायत तुमगांव द्वारा पूर्व में श्री एन.एस. मोटवानी, तत्कालीन अनुविभागीय अधिकारी, महासमुंद के नेतृत्व में जांचदल द्वारा नगर पंचायत तुमगांव की समस्त नस्तियां एवं देयक तत्कालीन मुख्य नगर पालिका अधिकारी श्री राजेन्द्र प्रसाद शर्मा की अनुपस्थिति में ले जाया गया था, जिसकी हमें कोई पावती नहीं दी गई थी। दिनांक 01.12.2014 को नगर पंचायत तुमगांव में उपस्थित होकर चाही गई नस्तियों का अवलोकन करने पर उक्त नस्तियां उपलब्ध नहीं है तथा दिनांक 13.01.2015 को पुनः आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत कर लेख किया गया कि नगर पंचायत तुमगांव में जांच हेतु ले गये रिकार्ड में जे.सी.बी. निविदा नस्ती व अग्रिम समायोजन पंजी के संबंध में ज्ञात हो की उक्त नस्ती संधारित ही नहीं की गई थी। यदि नस्ती बनी हुई होती तो इस संबध ं में मुझे जानकारी नहीं है। न ही उक्त नस्ती मेरे द्वारा तैयार कर संधारित की गई है। मेरे द्वारा दिनांक 01.12.2014 को जो जवाब दिया गया कि नस्ती श्री मोटवानी जी अनुविभागीय अधिकारी महासमुंद द्वारा ले जाया गया है। यह जानकारी श्री राजेन्द्र प्रसाद शर्मा तत्कालीन मुख्य नगर पालिका अधिकारी के दबाव में दिया गया है। जो भी अभिलेख जांच दल द्वारा ले गया था वह अभिलेख जांच दल द्वारा वापस कर दिया गया है। जो नगर पंचायत कार्यालय में रखा हुआ है।
इस प्रकार श्री कृष्णकांत कुर्रे, तत्कालीन प्रभारी लेखापाल, नगर पंचायत तुमगांव के द्वारा दिये गये आवेदन पत्रों से वरोधाभास की स्थिति है।
अतः श्री कृष्णकांत कुर्रे, सहायक ग्रेड-03 तत्कालीन प्रभारी लेखापाल, नगर पंचायत तुमगांव वर्तमान में न.पा.बलौदाबाजार तथा वर्तमान में नगर पंचायत तुमगांव में पदस्थ् प्रभारी लेखापाल जो अभियोजन पक्ष के गवाह है के समक्ष में बयान लिए जाने हेतु आगामी तिथि Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:3179 13 04.02.2015 निर्धारित की जाती है।
18. Thus, It would be evident from the aforesaid notesheet that no enquiry was initiated against Mr. K.K. Kurre or other officers for missing documents and enquiry was fixed for further evidence. It is evident from the material available on record that the documents were never supplied to the petitioner and impugned order of termination from service was passed against him.
19.Looking to the above guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court and facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the enquiry officer acted contrary to the provisions of law. Respondent authorities did not follow the directions of this Court, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer without giving opportunity to the petitioner is vitiated for non- compliance of principles of natural justice.
20. In the result of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) and 21.09.2017 are hereby set aside. Petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits as the petitioner at the time of filing of this petition, was aged about 56 years old and he already attained the age of superannuation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served ordering fresh enquiry in the matter. Since the petitioner has attained the age of retirement, the intervening period between the date of dismissal and date of retirement shall be treated as period rendered in service for the purpose of retiral benefits.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi