1 2025:CGHC:47241-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 679 of 2025 Ramesh Jaiswal S/o Shri Kunjbihari Jaiswal Aged About 60 Years Posted As Deputy Commissioner Cum Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 06 At Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Its Commissioner Nagar Nigam Head Office, Near Mahila Police Thana, Gandhi Udyan, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.17 10:20:35 +0530 2 15.09.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6621 of 2025, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in writ petition is that initially the appellant/ petitioner was appointed as Chief Municipal Officer and was posted at various places during his service tenure. Vide order dated 04-08-2015, he was posted on deputation to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. On 08-12-2017, a charge sheet was issued to him under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short “CCA Rules, 1966”) alleging that while executing the lease deed in favour of one Anand Sharma s/o Harcharan Sharma, the petitioner committed irregularities in depositing the premium amount of lease deed from the beneficiary due to which Municipal Corporation, Raipur suffered financial loss and after enquiry, the petitioner and one Dr. Preetam Mishra were found liable to cause loss to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and were imposed penalty of total Rs. 34,03,200/-, and liability of 50% to each was fixed upon the petitioner and Dr. Preetam Mishra, by the order dated 09-05-2025. 3 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus :- 19. Thus, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, after being duly authorized by the State Government, held an enquiry and, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order of penalty as provided under Rule 28 of the Rules of 2017 and order of withholding of 02 increment with non-cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 17,01,600/- from the petitioner is passed. The order of penalty dated 09-05-2025 is appealable as provided under Rule 36 of the Rules of 2017, and the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal before the competent authority. 20. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him for the reason that in the Gorelal Thakur case (supra), the consideration was whether the employee, who is on deputation, can be suspended only by the borrowing department or the power could be exercised by the parent department, and it is held that the borrowing authority, as well, have the powers to suspend the employee, who is on deputation, subject to riders of the Rules. In the Prabhakar Singh case (supra), the issue was about the imposition of a penalty by the borrowing department without consultation with the parent department. 4 Here in the present case, the State Government has authorized the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, to conduct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, and therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable then the abovementioned two judgments cited by the petitioner. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 10.07.2025 passed in WPS No. 6621 of 2025 and praying for quashing the penalty order dated 09.05.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/ petitioner is an employee of the State Government and a member of the State Municipal Service (Executive) as provided under Sections 86 and 87 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. The State Government, for the purposes of service conditions of the Chief Municipal Officers, framed the Rules named as “Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Services Rules, 2017 (in short “Rules of 2017”), which apply to the appellant’s case. Rule 28 of the Rules of 2017 provides the penalty, and Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017 provides the authority that may impose the penalty. Rule 30 provides the procedure, and Rule 36 provides the Appellate Authority. He further submits that 5 in the present case, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, is not the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings and to impose the penalty. The Director, Urban Administration, is the competent authority to initiate the departmental enquiry and to pass the order of penalty. He would further submit that the decision taken by the Mayor-in-Council, Raipur, dated 04-06-2011, to allot the subject land to Anand Sharma at a rate of 1.5 times of the Collector Rate. Subsequently, on 21-04-2014, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, sent a proposal to the State Government to allot the land at the rate of 2347/- per Sqr. Ft. for a total of 2400 Sqr. Ft. of land, which comes to a total of Rs. 56,28,600/-. The State Government granted permission on 23-05-2015, to allot the subject land to Anand Sharma on the above-quoted rate, but on that day, the petitioner was not posted there, and he came there subsequently. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner alleging that instead of Rs. 90,36,000/-, the land was allotted for the consideration of Rs. 56,32,600/- and thereby, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur suffered a loss of Rs. 34,03,200/-. The person who has got the deed registered has been left free from the enquiry. It is the fault of Dr. Preetam Mishra alone who has sent a proposal for the consideration of one time only instead of 1.5 times towards lease rent. The respondents are shifting the liability upon the petitioner who was not there at the Raipur Municipal Corporation at the 6 relevant point in time; therefore, the impugned order may be set aside, and the appeal may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State would support the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has the alternative remedy of appeal and the writ appeal is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation, Raipur, vehemently opposes and would submit that Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017 authorizes the appointing authority to impose the minor penalty. The appointing authority has been defined in Rule 2(b) of the Rules of 2017, which prescribes “the Government of Chhattisgarh”. The Urban Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, delegated the powers to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, to act as the disciplinary authority, by its memo dated 09-04-2018. Therefore, the question of lack of competency does not arise. It is also submitted that the issue of competency has been raised first time before this court, and during the enquiry proceeding, the issue has not been raised by the petitioner. He would further submit that, as per Rule 36 of the Rules of 2017, an appeal is provided against the order of penalty imposed against the petitioner. He would further submit that after obtaining prior permission from the State Government, the disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner. The State Government issued a circular on 08-06-2004 7 providing that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against an employee who is on deputation, subject to prior approval of the State Government. In the present case, there is prior approval of the State Government. He would further submit that instead of executing the lease deed in favour of Anand Sharma, the petitioner executed a sale deed in his favour, that too at a lower rate than the rate approved, which caused substantial loss to the Municipal Corporation. The impugned order is reasoned and speaks about the deliberation on the part of the petitioner, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 9. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition that the petitioner was on deputation, and the enquiry against the employee who is on deputation can be conducted by the department where he is on deputation. The State Government, vide its notification dated 08-06-2004, clarifies that the departmental enquiry may be conducted by the department where he was posted at the time of alleged misconduct. Thus, after obtaining permission from the State Government, which is the appointing authority of the petitioner, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, enquired into the matter and imposed the 8 penalty of recovery of the amount from the petitioner as provided under clause (iii) of Rule 28 of the Rules of 2017, after holding him liable to cause loss to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. The order of penalty is under the competence of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 10. The next submission of the petitioner was that the State Government granted permission on 23-05-2015, to allot the subject land to Anand Sharma on the above-quoted rate, but on that day, the petitioner was not posted there, and he came there subsequently, is also does not help him for the reason that though he came there on 04-08-2015, but on the date when the deed was registered, he was posted there and the State Government has granted permission to execute “lease deed”, whereas, the petitioner has proceeded for execution of “sale deed” in favour of Anand Sharma. He issued letters dated 30-09-2015 to Harcharan Sharma and 05-10-2015 to Anand Sharma. Further, the State Government granted permission to execute the lease deed at the rate of Rs. 3765/- per Sq. Ft., which is 1.5 times of Collector rate of the land, but the petitioner has permitted and obtained the amount at the rate of Rs. 2347/- per Sq. Ft., which is equal to the Collector rate of the land. The sale deed was registered in the tenure of the petitioner, and therefore, he cannot escape from his liability. Further, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has held that the order of 9 penalty dated 09.05.2025 is appealable as provided under Rule 36 of the Rule of 2017, and the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal before the competent authority, as is provided under Rule 36 of the Rules, 2017, which categorically provides that (1) except in cases of censure under clauses (i) to (iii) of rule 28, a member of the service may, within thirty days of receipt of order, appeal before the State Government against a penalty imposed on him by the Director and (2) The State Government may, after lapse of the period specified in sub-rule (1), entertain any appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing. 11. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 13. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 14. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are 10 of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri