1 2025:CGHC:2729-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 12 of 2025 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya. New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Bhartiya Chikitsa Padhati Evam Homeopathy Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Principal Govt. Ayurved College Raipur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Ayurved Officer Kawardha District Kabirdham, C.G., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Ayurved Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rajkumar Mishra S/o Lt. Shri Radhakrishan Mishra Aged About 44 Years Occupation Service (Dismissed), Asstt. Grade Iii, Office Of District Ayurved Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, R/o C/o Rashmi Pandey Advocate, In Front Of Family Planning Office, Eye Bank, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Mr.Yashwant Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant/State. Also heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present writ appeal filed by the State against the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5854 of 2024, whereby the impugned orders dated 20.04.2011 and 20.04.2012 have been quashed by holding that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the allegations leveled against him and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing minor punishment looking to he misconduct of he petitioner and the petition was disposed of. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on compassionate appointment vide appointment order dated 16.07.1992. He was charge-sheeted for his unauthorized absent in his duty from May, 2004 to July, 2005 and his behavior was not proper towards his Superior Authorities and clerks which is misconduct as provided under Rules 3 (1) (ii) and 3(i) (iii) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. After conducting the Departmental Inquiry, the charge no.1 was found proved, however, charge no.2 was not found proved. After the Departmental Inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority have imposed punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 20.04.2011. The Departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 20.04.2012 which is under challenge in the petition. 4. The challenge of the petitioner in the present petition was on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing imposing major 3 punishment which is violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondent State was also having their burden to prove that the petitioner was willfully absent from his duty and his behavior was unbecoming of a government servant, therefore, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside and he is entitled for his reinstatement. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, 2012 (3) SCC 178, The learned Single Judge has quashed both orders dated 20.04.2011 and 20.04.2012 by holding that there is no finding to the effect that the presence of the petitioner was willful. There was no specific period given by the Inquiry Officer for which the petitioner remained absent in between May, 2004 to July, 2005 and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to impose minor punishment looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. It is also observed in the order impugned that the Disciplinary Authority shall pass the appropriate order within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order and shall also consider the charges and consequential benefits to the petitioner which is under challenge in the present writ appeal by the State. 6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner was the habitual absentee and was not regularly appearing in his service and remained absent on various occasions without notice. He would also submits that liberty was provided to the petitioner in Departmental Inquiry proceedings, the further conclusion of the proceeding the Inquiry Officer hold him guilty which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. There are two concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, therefore, same cannot be disturbed in exercising the writ jurisdiction by this Court, yet the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have been set aside/quashed by the learned Single Judge which is liable to be interfere with and the impugned order may be set aside. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 8. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the material produced with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that there is no specific date given in the charge no.1, as on which date the petitioner was remained absent from his duty and charged that he remained absent in May, 2004 to July, 2005. However, on many occasions he joined his service. There is no finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority that the absence of the petitioner was willful. The learned Single Judge has also considered that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate, in view of the alleged misconduct. Thereby, setting aside/quashed the orders dated 20.04.2011 and 20.04.2012 and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing minor penalty, in view of the misconduct of the petitioner. The consideration of the learned Single Judge is based on proper appreciation of the material as well as law applicable to the case, there is no infirmity or illegality found in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 10. In view of the above, We do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.22 10:42:14 +0530