1 2025:CGHC:1749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8490 of 2024 1 - E. R. Kapale S/o Shri Shyam Rao Kapale Aged About 64 Years R/o Pople 29 Chhattisgar Housing Board Colony, Boriyakalan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 8532 of 2024 1 - E. R. Kapale S/o Shri Shyam Rao Kapale Aged About 64 Years R/o People 29 Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Boriyakalan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate alongwith Ms. Suman Shrivastava, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. Since issue involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. Instant petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 06.10.2023 and consequent order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the State Government whereby the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working on the post of Under Secretary in the Department of School Education, State of Chhattisgarh, at that time, on 12.09.2017, a complaint was made by one Shri Raj Kumar Chandnani, who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-I in the Directorate of Public 3 Instructions, with regard to promotion having been made by the Directorate of Public Instructions before the Secretary, School Education Department. The said complaint contained name of the petitioner and other ofÏcers posted in the Department of School Education, including the name of Joint Secretary as well. The petitioner on 23.09.2017 sent a letter to the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions informing that the previously complainant- Shri Raj Kumar Chandnani had made similar complaints directly by writing letters to the senior ofÏcers, on which vide letter dated 20.07.2017, the Directorate of Public Instruction was directed to take administrative action against him for the said act. Accordingly, vide letter dated 23.09.2017, the petitioner upon making reference to the earlier letter dated 20.07.2017, having been sent previously informed the Directorate of Public Instructions that administrative action according to the rules be taken against the complainant and necessary information be sent to the State Government to this effect. On the basis of said letter dated 23.09.2017, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 25.06.2019 alleging that the petitioner without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority had written letter to the Directorate of Public Instruction for taking administrative action against the complainant directly in a case where the name of the petitioner was also included in the aforesaid complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that charge-sheet was issued by the General Administration Department, whereas the petitioner at the relevant point of time was under the Department of School Education and, therefore, the General Administration Department could not have initiated any proceeding against the petitioner. The General Administration Department was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner 4 was proceeded with in the departmental enquiry, and the petitioner raised his ground pointing out that the complainant was habitual for making such frivolous complaints and such deeds of the complainant were considered in the past by the state government and vide letter dated 20.07.2017, directions were issued to the Directorate of Public Instructions to take action against the complainant. In pursuance thereof, departmental enquiry was conducted, in which, complainant Shri Raj Kumar Chandnani was  examined and he categorically deposed that the complaint dated 12.09.2017 was not sent by him. The said statement clearly demonstrated that once the complainant himself denied the complaint, further proceedings made against the petitioner, being absolutely misconceived and the same ought to have been dropped. The petitioner even requested for the entire file proceedings conducted before issuance of the order dated 20.07.2017 to demonstrate that the letter dated 23.09.2017 was nothing but, a reiteration of the previous order dated 20.07.2017. However, the enquiry ofÏcer proceeded to submit the enquiry report on 16.02.2022, wherein it was alleged that the charge levelled against the petitioner was partially proved. Unfortunately, the General Administration Department also vide its letter dated 27.04.2022 directed the Secretary, School Education Department to submit the entire file pertaining to the letter dated 20.07.2017 to the department. However, the file proceedings pertaining to the order dated 20.07.2017 were never provided to the GAD and the same were also not provided to the petitioner despite the petitioner having demanded the same in the departmental enquiry. The file noting pertaining to the letter dated 20.07.2017 were highly pertinent to demonstrate the innocence of the petitioner and further to clarify that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct by having issued the letter 5 dated 23.09.2017, since the said letter was merely reiterating the directions issued on 20.07.2017 against the complainant. Respondent No. 2 in an absolute highhanded manner without due consideration of the response submitted by the petitioner and the attending facts which were highlighted by the petitioner simply stated that the enquiry ofÏcer submitted an enquiry report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved and therefore proceeded to impose collective punishment of withholding 10% of the monthly pension payable to the petitioner for a period of 3 years vide order dated 06.10.2023. The said enquiry was conducted in an absolutely highhanded manner without adherence to the fundamental principles of service jurisprudence. The petitioner cannot be penalized in such an illegal manner. A consolidated punishment was imposed upon the petitioner in three departmental enquiries which were instituted against him. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned order passed by General Administration Department, being illegal and arbitrary, is unsustainable in law, as all three departmental enquiries conducted against the petitioner were clubbed together in an absolutely illegal manner without there being any enabling provision for the same and the State Government proceeded to impose a consolidated punishment upon the petitioner. He further submits that the said act on the part of the respondent authorities was absolutely contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 in an absolute highhanded manner without considering the facts of the case of the petitioners simply stated that the enquiry ofÏcer submitted an enquiry report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved and, therefore, proceeded to impose 6 collective punishment of withholding 10% of the monthly pension payable to the petitioner for a period of three years vide impugned order dated 06.10.2023, which is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, particularly considering the facts that a consolidated punishment was imposed upon the petitioner in three departmental enquiries, which was instituted against him whereas separate order ought to have been passed by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh in each of the departmental enquiries, which was also conceded by the State Counsel, as such, the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 is liable to be and is hereby quashed. 8. However, since the impugned order seems to be not in accordance with law, as in three departmental enquiries, one singular order has been passed, therefore, the respondents are directed to rectify the said orders and pass separate and appropriate orders for each case in accordance with law. As Such without commenting anything on merits of the case, it is directed to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in respect of the separate charges leveled against the petitioners with the aforesaid directions, the impugned order are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents authorities with a direction to pass appropriate orders as directed above. 7 9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge amita Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.01.22 09:02:12 +0530