1 2025:CGHC:17376-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 240 of 2025 1 - The Governing Body, (Constitute Under Statue 28 Of The College Code Of C.G. Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam 1973), Though The Secretary To The Governing Body Office Of Principal Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chouk, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 2) 2 - Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College Through The Principal Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) 3 - The Principal Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College Bal Ashram Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4) 4 - Rashtriya Vidyalaya Samiti Through The Secretary, Rashtriya Vidyalaya Samiti, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 5) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - D.K. Chandrakar S/o Shri Baldau Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years Accountant Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 1) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.21 16:50:19 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Adv along with Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava and Ms. Ritik Dubey, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate along with Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava and Ms. Ritik Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.2 / State as well as Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 20.03.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1167/2020 (D.K. Chandrakar and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of "Accountant" vide order dated 26.08.2010 under the establishment of Higher Education Institute namely "Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Raipur" (henceforth "College"). The said 3 Institute is imparting education in the field of Higher Education, which is managed by the Society namely "Rastriya Vidyalaya Samiti" (henceforth, 'Samiti'). The management of the College is administered and managed by the Governing Body constituted under Section 6 of the Statute 28 of College Code, which is framed under Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The said college is receiving the salary and maintenance grant from the State Government. Alleging misconduct, departmental enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner employee and Principal of the College has appointed Enquiry Officer to the person, who is member of Foundation Society of the Samiti (respondent No. 5). The Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry submitted enquriy report dated 31.10.2018 to the Principal of the College holding guilty to the writ petitioner. Based on that enquiry report, Principal / respondent No. 4 passed order dated 31.07.2019 terminating the writ petitioner from services. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the writ petitioner filed WPS No. 1167 of 2020, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.03.2025. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge of the this Court has not properly appreciated facts, grounds and law applicable the case in passing of their order dated 20.03.2025 and has not considered objections raised by the appellants that Pt. Ravishankar University. Raipur is a necessary 4 party in the writ petition because the Appellant College is affiliated with them and appointment of Petitioner was done on due approval of this University and has also not considered that the Appellant College is affiliated with Pt. Ravishankar University and governed under the Statute 28: College Code, hence the same is applicable, accordingly. The learned Single Judge has wrongly held that Statute 28 of the College Code framed under the of C.G. Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 is not applicable in the matter, despite observing that the writ petitioner has been appointed on 26.08.2010 under College Code: Statute 28 - Section 17.1(iii). 6. He further argued that the learned Single Judge has ignored that the Principal of Appellant College, being appointing and disciplinary authority under part V and VI of Statute Act 28 she has rightly initiated disciplinary action under the rules and passed impugned order dated 31.07.2019 against the writ petitioner and has wrongly held that appellant college is receiving 100% maintenance grant from the Government of Chhattisgarh only on the basis of Annexure P/17 (of writ petition), which is an in- principle approval of Government of Chhattisgarh, Higher education Department of 30.09.2013 that it is in principal consented for acceptance to grant ad-hoc grant for salary and allowances for 1st year 50%, second year 75% and 3rd year 100%. The learned Single Judge has not observed that there is no order that after three years above referred of order dated 30.09.2013 there is any provision that the appellant college will get 5 100% grant on regular basis. The writ petitioner had claimed that the appellant college is receiving 100% ad-hoc grant from the Government, hence it was his duty to prove the same but he has failed to demonstrate the same, but this fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. As per section 31 of the Chhattisgarh Non-Government Colleges and Institutions in Higher Education (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2006 there is two types of grant, as under:- Section 31: Type of grant: 1. Maintenance grant is a recurring grant provided for payment of the salaries to such employees (including teacher) of the non-governmental institutions as were appointed with the concurrence of either Higher Education Department of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Government or Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Uchcha Siksha Anudan Aayog prior to the commencement of the said Act. 2. Ad-hoc Grant is a non-recurring grant to be provided for such non- aided colleges, as have been running successfully with good record for five years, prior to submitting application for the assistance. 7. He also argued that the learned Single Judge has not considered that the writ petitioner has not been appointed with concurrence of the Chhattisgarh Government or Chhattisgarh Uchcha Siksha Anudan Aayog, as provided under section 31 of the Act, 2006 6 (supra) to be eligible to receive maintenance grant from them, hence the Act, 1978 is not applicable in the matter. The Petitioner has been appointed on approval of the Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur under the College Code: Statute 28, hence college code: Statue 28 is applicable in this case. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which, no interference is sought. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner holding that it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was working as 'Accountant' of Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Raipur. It was also not in dispute that salary was being paid to the petitioner from the 'aid' received from the State Government. According to College is not a 100% government aided college, rather while referring to order dated 18.07.2023, he stated that it received only 50% aid from the State Government, but this submission is not found to be true, because as per order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, College was granted up to 50% for first year, 75% 7 for second year and 100% for third year from the date of issuance of aforesaid order. Impugned order was passed in the year 2019, meaning thereby, at that time, College was 100% aided college by the State Government. Even, the petition {demand letter of teaching / non-teaching staff from July 2016 to March 2017 (on the basis of 50% salary grant)}, also contains name of the writ petitioner at Serial No.11, which shows that salary was paid to the writ petitioner from the 'aid' received from the State Government. Perusal of order dated 18.7.2023 shows that vide aforesaid order 50% amount was released against the demand made by the College, therefore, on the basis of such document, the order dated 30.9.2013 cannot be discarded whereby 100% grant has been sanctioned for the College by the State Government.] 11. Learned Single Judge further considered Section 1(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1978 and held that since College is a 100% Government aided college, receiving 'maintenance grant' for payment of salaries to the employees including writ petitioner, therefore, it is governed under the Adhiniyam, 1978' and 'Niyam 1983' framed thereunder. Learned Single Jude also held 6(a)(iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1978 and held that under the authority of aforesaid provision, the State Government has prescribed / framed 'Niyam 1983'. As per Rule 7 (1)(e) of Niyam 1983, in case of enquiry against any employee, the 'Head of Institution' shall be appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In instant case, the Principal is 8 Head of the Institution, as such, it ought to have conducted enquiry, but it did not conduct enquiry against the writ petitioner, rather it appointed a person under Statute No. 28, who was member of Foundation Society of Samiti and it conducted the enquiry, but as has been discussed above that service condition of writ petitioner will not be governed under the Statute No. 28, therefore, appointment of Enquiry Officer by the Principal / respondent No. 4 was bad in law. 12. 12. Learned Single Judge further held that perusal of Rules 8 to 12 of Niyam, 1983 shows that Enquiry Officer shall submit report to the Management for taking decision. But in the instant case, neither enquiry was conducted by the 'Head of the Institution' i.e. Principal nor enquiry report was produced before Management (governing body) of the college for taking consideration of the enquiry report, rather Principal itself accepted enquiry report and based on that enquiry report, services of the writ petitioner was terminated vide order dated 31.07.2019, which is against the provisions contained in Adhiniyam, 1978' and 'Niyam 1983' framed thereunder, as such, enquiry proceeding instituted against the writ petitioner was bad in law ab-initio. Therefore, it was held that order dated 31.07.2019 has been passed against the aforesaid provisions contained in Adhihiyam, 1978' and 'Niyam 1983' framed thereunder, hence the same deserves to be set aside / quashed. 13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel 9 appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet