1 2025:CGHC:49056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4016 of 2022  Pyare Lal Burman S/o Shri K.R. Burman Aged About 56 Years Occupation Government Servant, Presently Working As Principal At Government High School, Sodekela, Block Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director School Education Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Government Primary School Premises (Ghodadana) Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer Raigarh, Zila Panchayat Premises, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 2016 of 2023  Pyarelal Burman S/o Kani Ram Burman, Aged About 56 Years R/o Kayaghat, Babakuti, S.E.C.L. Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. - Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, District - Raigarh (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate (WPS No. 4016 of 2022) Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate (WPS No. 2016 of 2023) For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.26 14:55:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 09.2025 1. In WPS No. 4016 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by disciplinary authority dated 23.05.2022, whereby the order of compulsory retirement and recovery of amount of Rs. 19,94,617/- have been passed, and at the same time, the order passed in appeal dated 22.11.2024 has also been challenged. 2. In WPS No. 2016 of 2023, the petitioner has claimed grant of substance allowance of period from 30.03.2019 to 11.02.2020 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer vide order dated 19.11.1992 and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Tarkela, Block Raigarh, District Raigarh. He was promoted to the post of Principal with effect from 18.08.2009. In the month of August, 2016, the services of the petitioner were transferred at Government Higher Secondary School, Dongaripali, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh on the post of Principal. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.03.2019. 4. The order of suspension was challenged by filing WPS No. 10283 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2019, whereby the petitioner was permitted to make a separate representation before the respondent No. 1 in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. The suspension order of the petitioner was revoked by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.02.2020. 5. An article of charge was issued along with charge-sheet, list of documents 3 and list of witnesses to the petitioner on 20.05.2019. The petitioner moved an application to provide relevant documents mentioned in the charge- sheet, the orders with regard to constitution of preliminary enquiry committees, their enquiry report and other relevant documents. 6. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 30.11.2019, appointed enquiry officer and presenting officer. The petitioner moved an application to review its order dated 30.11.2019, but no decision was taken. The enquiry officer proceeded with enquiry proceeding and examine prosecution witnesses and finally submitted its report on 09.04.2021. A show-cause notice along with enquiry report was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner again moved an application to provide documents mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 29.03.2022, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement and an order of recovery of Rs. 19,94,617/-. An appeal was preferred before the appellate authority and it was dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 22.11.2024. 7. In WPS No. 4016 of 2022, Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate would argue that in the charge-sheet, there were only five cited witnesses, but the enquiry officer examined three more witnesses, who were not named in the charge- sheet. He would further submit that there was allegation that while the petitioner was posted to the post of Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Dongaripali, he committed financial irregularities, whereas, in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer included the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner at Government Higher Secondary School, Tetla, District Raigarh and Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Sariya, District Raigarh. He would submit that there was no allegation in the charge-sheet with regard to financial irregularities committed at two other schools and documents were also not supplied. He 4 would contend that from very inception of departmental enquiry, the petitioner moved applications to provide relevant documents, but documents were not provided till conclusion of departmental enquiry. He would contend that even the relevant documents were not in possession of the enquiry officer and this fact is evident from Ex. P/11 dated 09.02.2021 and those documents were never provided to the petitioner; therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is bad in law. It is also argued that the article of charge framed against the petitioner were not definite and specific. Thus, he would pray to allow this petition. 8. In WPS No. 2016 of 2023, Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate would argue that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.03.2019 and his suspension was revoked by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.02.2020, but till date the subsistence allowance of said period has not been paid. He would further submit that even in departmental enquiry, no decision has been taken with regard to claim of the petitioner for subsistence allowance. He would pray to allow this petition. 9. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Naik and Mr. Khuniya. He would submit that the petitioner, when he was posted as Principal at Government Higher Secondary School, Dongaripali, he committed financial irregularities, therefore, article of charge was issued. He would further submit that there were other allegations also and the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of Rule 3 of C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. He would also submit that the allegations against the petitioner were definite and specific. He would contend that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed reply to article of charge and all the relevant documents were provided to him. 5 10. With regard to the examination of other witnesses, he would submit that the witnesses of other schools where the petitioner was posted earlier were examined by the enquiry officer to prove the misconduct of the petitioner. He would further submit that all the relevant documents were sent to the petitioner through registered post on 24.05.2019. He would also submit that as there is an order of recovery against the petitioner; therefore, the claim of the petitioner with regard to subsistence allowance has not been decided yet and said amount would be adjusted against the amount of recovery. He would contend that both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 12. Article of charge would reveal that while the petitioner was posted to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Dongaripali, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh, he committed financial irregularities. In the charge-sheet, there were only five cited witnesses. Further, documents related to the allegations were part of the charge-sheet, but those documents were not provided to the petitioner; therefore, application was moved by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1. It appears that those documents were not provided to the petitioner and subsequently, enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed. The enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and examined more than 5 cited witnesses. The enquiry officer included irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Tetla, District Raigarh between 10.10.2013 to 17.08.2016 and Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Sariya, District Raigarh for period from 18.08.2009 to 16.10.2010. In the charge-sheet, these schools were not included and there were no allegations with regard to financial irregularities. The 6 documents with regard to financial irregularities committed in these schools were not part of the charge-sheet. 13. The enquiry officer examined staff of Government Higher Secondary School, Tetla, District Raigarh and Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Sariya, District Raigarh to prove factum of financial irregularities, but those witnesses were not cited witnesses in the charge-sheet. The enquiry officer examined additional witnesses without providing relevant documents in a surprised manner, and thus, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing to defend his case properly. Second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after submission of enquiry report on 29.03.2022 and again petitioner moved an application to provide relevant documents. 14. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 23.05.2022 has not considered the illegality committed by the enquiry officer during enquiry. The disciplinary authoirty has not assigned sufficient reasons while affirming the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority has also not decided the claim of the petitioner with regard to subsistence allowance. 15. Considering the above-stated facts, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to decide the matter afresh in light of observations made herein-above after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 16. The entire exercise shall be completed by the disciplinary authority within a period of 120 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a fresh representation raising all his grievances before the respondent No. 1 along with copy of this order. 7 18. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), both the petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant