1 2025:CGHC:18075-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 256 of 2025 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Bilaspur Division, Regional OfÏce, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus Rajesh Tiwari S/o Late Shri Murarilal Tiwari Aged About 58 Years Working As Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Baloda, Nagar Panchayat, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.24 15:06:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants/State as well as Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/State against the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1531 of 2024 (Rajesh Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner herein. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the present respondent/writ petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking 3 relief from this Hon'ble Court to allow the instant writ petition by holding that punishment of demotion to the respondent vide Annexure P/8 (in the writ petition) is result of victimization, colourable exercise of power and the order of demotion does not specify how the period of suspension will the treated, also makes the order impugned Annexure P/8 (in the writ petition) illegal, hence liable to set aside. Consequently, the order Annexure P/9 (in the writ petition) is also be set-aside and it be directed that the respondent/writ petitioner be reinstated in service with back wages by paying difference of amount of suspension already being paid to him, treating and declaring suspension as illegal and direct posting of respondent/writ petitioner in the same place form where he was suspended with all back wages and service benefits. 6. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the learned Single Judge has observed that, evidently, the respondent/writ petitioner was posted as Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Pankhajur at the relevant time. One Mukesh Bagchi moved an application for compassionate appointment and a decision was taken by the President-in-Council, Pankhajur on 04.02.2019 to provide sufÏcient time to Mukesh Bagchi to acquire the requisite qualifications. The respondent/writ petitioner being the Secretary of the Council issued the order with regard to the appointment of Mukesh Bagchi on the post of Safai Daroga and afforded him time to acquire educational qualification vide order dated 20.09.2019. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that, a bare perusal of the resolution passed by President-in-Council, Pankhajur dated 04.02.2019 would reveal that a decision was taken to appoint Mukesh Bagchi by Nagar Panchayat, Pankhajur and time was granted to him to 4 acquire educational qualifications following which the respondent/writ petitioner issued order in this regard. The respondent/writ petitioner complied with the resolution dated 04.02.2019. The respondent/writ petitioner was afforded the opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry and it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice or where procedure has not been followed. 7. Learned State counsel further contended that learned Single Judge further observed that, as respondent/writ petitioner had just complied with the decision taken by the President-in-Council, therefore, the orders passed by appellant No. 1 dated 12.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 (Annexures P/8 & P/9 in the writ petition) are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to quashed. The suspension period shall be treated as the period on duty and the respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to get the entire salary for that period. The respondent/writ petitioner shall be posted on the post of Chief Municipal OfÏcer forthwith. He also contended that the respondent/writ petitioner while posted as the Chief Municipal OfÏcer (C Cadre) at Nagar Panchayat Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), had contrary and dehors the rules and circular/policy of the State Government, appointed one Mr. Mukesh Bagchi on compassionate grounds on the post of Safai Daroga. Owing to the above misconduct of the respondent/writ petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2020, the respondent/writ petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, he was served with the charge-sheet alongwith the list of witnesses, list of documents and the list of charges and the respondent/writ petitioner was directed to submit his reply, but the reply submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, a Departmental Enquiry 5 was contemplated against the respondent/writ petitioner wherein, the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Jagdalpur was appointed as Enquiry OfÏcer and the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat Pakhanjur was appointed as Presenting OfÏcer in the said enquiry. 8. It is further stated by the learned State counsel that after a detailed enquiry as per the relevant provisions of the law in which, the full opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent/writ petitioner and upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, an enquiry report dated 12.09.2022 was presented wherein, the charges leveled against the respondent/writ petitioner were found to be proved. He also states that the Disciplinary Authority after receiving the enquiry report sent an intimation alongwith the copy of the enquiry report with direction that, if the respondent/writ petitioner was desirous of submitting any response/representation etc, in relation to the conclusion arrived in the departmental enquiry, the same should be furnished and further more if the respondent/writ petitioner wanted an opportunity of personal hearing then also an intimation to that effect may be conveyed. He would submit that after taking into consideration the defence put up by the respondent/writ petitioner and affording the respondent/writ petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, the final order was passed on 13.03.2024 vide Annexure P/8 (in the writ petition) in which, the defence put up by the respondent/writ petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and the respondent/writ petitioner was imposed with a punishment of demotion from the post of Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat (C Cadre) to the post of Assistant Grade-II and the respondent/writ petitioner was 6 reinstated back in service after his suspension and the respondent/writ petitioner was posted at his original place of posting i.e. the Nagar Panchayat Kharaud. 9. Learned State counsel placed the reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Another vs. G. Ganayutham (dead) represented through LRs, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3387 has held that, the Court would not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational in the sense that, it was in outrageous defiance of the logic or moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including proportionality being brought into English Administrative Law in future is not rules out, these are the CCSU principles. He also placed the reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the enquiry ofÏcer as the Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions and that power of judicial review is not directed against the decision, but is confined to the decision making process. In a case such as the present one, where the delinquent admitted the charges, no scope is left to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry ofÏcer about the proof of charges. In the absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, it has to be held that, the charges against the delinquent stood proved and warranted no interference. Therefore, the grounds which have been raised by the respondent/writ petitioner and the reliefs which have been 7 sought by the writ petitioner/present respondent in his writ petition are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 12. It is evident that the respondent/writ petitioner was posted as Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Pankhajur at the relevant time. One Mukesh Bagchi moved an application for compassionate appointment and a decision was taken by the President-in-Council, Pankhajur on 04.02.2019 to provide sufÏcient time to Mukesh Bagchi to acquire the requisite qualifications. The respondent/writ petitioner being the Secretary of the Council issued the order with regard to the appointment of Mukesh Bagchi on the post of Safai Daroga and afforded him time to acquire educational qualification vide order dated 20.09.2019. 13. A bare perusal of the resolution passed by President-in-Council, Pankhajur dated 04.02.2019 would reveal that a decision was taken to appoint Mukesh Bagchi by Nagar Panchayat, Pankhajur and time was granted to him to acquire educational qualifications following which the respondent/writ petitioner issued order in this regard. The respondent/writ 8 petitioner complied with the resolution dated 04.02.2019. The respondent/writ petitioner was afforded the opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry and it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice or where procedure has not been followed. 14. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that as the respondent/writ petitioner had just complied with the decision taken by the President-in-Council, therefore, the orders passed by appellant No.1 date 12.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 (Annexures P/8 & P/9 in the writ petition) are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to quashed. The suspension period shall be treated as the period on duty and the respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to get the entire salary for that period. The respondent/writ petitioner shall be posted on the post of Chief Municipal OfÏcer forthwith. 15. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 16. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan