Sachchidanand Sinha vs The State of Chhattisgarh and Others

N.K. Agarwal, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 24.05.2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3 whereby a minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 19,080/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this petition are: in the year 2004, the petitioner was working as Agricultural Development Officer and was posted at Gharghoda. Some cement was purchased for construction of Bulkeriya Stop Dam, for which, the quotation of M/s. Dwarka Das Joharmal, Gharghoda, was accepted by the Assistant Land Conservation Officer, Dharamjaigarh at the rate of Rs. 160/- per bag. Vide order impugned, the said Assistant Land Conservation Officer directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 19,080/-, as according to him, at the relevant time, the maximum rate of cement was Rs. 145/- per bag whereas the petitioner purchased the same on higher rate of Rs. 160/- per bag.

Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is not at all responsible to pay the above amount to the Department as he has played no role in purchase of above cement. It was further contended that the recovery of above amount from the petitioner amounts to minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 10(iii) of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the CCA Rules''), and therefore, the same cannot be imposed without adopting the due procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, i.e., without informing the petitioner in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of the misconduct or misbehavior on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. As no such steps were taken by the respondents nor any opportunity is given to the petitioner, therefore, the order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is per se was illegal and deserves to be quashed.

On the other hand, Shri S.P. Kale, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State with Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer supported the order impugned.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the paper book, it is clear as crystal that the order impugned amounts to imposition of penalty within the meaning of Rule 10(iii), and therefore, before imposition of penalty, the compliance of Rule 16 was mandatory. As the respondents have not informed the petitioner in writing of the proposal to take action against him nor any reasonable opportunity of making representation is given to the petitioner before passing of the order, therefore, the impugned order passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice, suffers from serious jurisdiction illegality and is not sustainable in law. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The order impugned passed against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 19,080/- is quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order after complying with the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules.