T.K. Jangde vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr

S.K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 26-8-2000 (Annexure -- P/6) passed b the Under Secretary to the then Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, by which the petitioner has been removed from service. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 8-7-2008 (Annexure -- P/1) passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Forest, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the removal order has been rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Forest Ranger at Raigarh, a charge sheet dated 20-8-1991 (Annexure--P/4) was issued to him by leveling certain allegations to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 13-8-1998 (Annexure -- P/5). However, after completion of enquiry proceedings by order dated 26-8-2000 (Annexure -- P/6) the petitioner has been removed from the service.

Learned counsel further submits that against the said removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the, then, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 19-10-2000 (Annexure - P/8). Thereafter, the new State of Chhattisgarh was carved out pursuant to the operation of the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short "the Act, 2000") on 1-11-2000. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. On the basis of the said events, the appeal pending before the State of Madhya Pradesh was required to be transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh, however, instead of transferring the same, the State of Madhya Pradesh by its order dated 16-9-2005 (Annexure -- P/12) rejected the appeal of the petitioner by maintaining the removal order.

Shri Nair submits that after allocation of the services of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh there is no master and servant relationship between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 16-9-2005 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh is not at all sustainable in the eye of law, as the State of Madhya Pradesh has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal of the petitioner after allocation of his services to the State of Chhattisgarh. By raising all the grievances, the petitioner approached the State of Chhattisgarh by filing a fresh appeal, however, the same has been rejected by the order dated 8-7-2008 (Annexure -- P/1) holding that the second appeal is not maintainable. The impugned'' orders are illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled principles of law.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities and also submits that the same have been passed rightly, which do not warrant any interference of this Court.

On perusal of the documents, it is crystal clear that against the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 19-10-2000 before the State of Madhya Pradesh, however, pursuant to the reorganisation of the State, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, thus the authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh instead of deciding the appeal of the petitioner on 16-9-2005, the same ought to have been transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh, but the same has not been done, which is against the well-settled principles of law and without any jurisdiction.

Section 83 of the Act, 2000 provides for transfer of proceedings pending before the authorities to the other State wherein the employee has been transferred. In the case on hand, the appeal was preferred before creation of State of Chhattisgarh and the same ought to have been automatically transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh for consideration of appeal and decision.

Section 83 of the Act, 2000 reads as under:

Transfer of pending proceedings. --

(1) Every proceeding pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (including High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Madhya Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Chhattisgarh State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer of the State of Chhattisgarh.

(2) If any question arises as to whether any proceeding should stand transferred under subsection (1), it shall be referred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the decision of that High Court shall be final.

(3) In this Section- (a) "proceeding" includes any suit, case or appeal; and (b) "corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer" in the State of Chhattisgarh means

(i) the court, tribunal, authority or officer in which, or before whom, the proceeding would have laid if it had been instituted after the appointed day; or

(ii) in case of doubt, such court, tribunal, authority, or officer in the State of Chhattisgarh, as may be determined after the appointed day by the Government of that state or the Central Government, as the case may be, or before the appointed day by the Government of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh to be the corresponding court, tribunal, authority or officer.

With regard to the question of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in Chandrabhai K. Bhoir and Others v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir and Others, observed that:

26....In any view of the matter, an order passed without jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be a coram non judice. It is non est in the eye of the law. Principles of res judicata would not apply to such cases. (See Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta and National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh).

In view of foregoing, applying the well-settled principles of law and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the order dated 16-9-2005 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh is quashed, as non est in the eye of the law.

The competent authority under the provisions of the Act, 2000 is the State of Chhattisgarh and, as such, the appeal before the State of Madhya Pradesh ought to have been decided by the State of Chhattisgarh, The second appeal filed subsequently by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the State of Chhattisgarh as not maintainable.

Accordingly, the State of Chhattisgarh is directed to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the, then, State of Madhya Pradesh on 19-10-2000 (Annexure--P/8) afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs.