Purshottam Panda vs State Of Chhattisgarh

.

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure P/7), passed by respondent No.3, whereby the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Internal Accounts Inspection and Taxation Officer has been terminated on the ground that charges levelled against him have been proved.

Mr. Harsh Wardhan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the chargesheet issued against the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner had unnecessarily harassed one Vibhishan s/o Ghanshyam, R/o Village Kodapalli by not disbursing the amount of second installment to him under the Indira Awas Yojana, Year 2011-2012, however, the delay in making the payment had occurred because the original beneficiary namely, Ghanshyam had died and his name was to be corrected in the official records. He would further submit that the petitioner was neither subjected to the second charge of causing loss of Rs. 37,500/-, nor he was granted any opportunity of hearing against the same and, thus, it was beyond the scope of charges leveled against the petitioner. As such, the charges are liable to be set aside and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 would support the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection.

It is the case of the petitioner that one Vibhishan S/o Ghanshyam, R/o Village Kodapalli was given money for construction of house under the Indira Awas Yojana, Year 2011-2012, however, there was a delay in disbursing the amount of second installment to him, as Ghanshayam, who was the original beneficiary had died on 20.10.2010 and the official records were to be corrected before disbursing the said amount to his son Vibhishan. Thus, it is not the case that the amount was not disbursed to the beneficiary or it was embezzled by the petitioner and, therefore, only on the ground of some delay in disbursing the amount to the beneficiary, the penalty of termination could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. Furthermore, the second charge of causing loss of Rs.37,500/-, which was found to be proved vide the impugned order, was never a part of the charge-sheet issued on 22.08.2013 (Annexure P/2) and, therefore, it cannot be held as found proved against the petitioner. As such, the penalty of dismissal from service due to delay in disbursing the amount to the beneficiary is entirely disproportionate to the misconduct and deserves to be set aside.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 (Annexure P/7) is hereby quashed and the petitioner is imposed with penalty of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect. Since the original petitioner has already died on 26.06.2023, he is reinstated notionally for all service benefits except back wages. For the purpose of back-wages, the petitioners herein are at liberty to make representation before the Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, which is to be considered and decided in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of the said representation, while taking into account whether the petitioner was gainfully employed from the date of his termination (25.06.2014) till the date of his death (26.06.2023). Further, the other benefits including the pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall also be finalised expeditiously.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).