1 2025:CGHC:50223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4931 of 2018 1 - Alkhuram Sahu S/o Shri Aajuram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years Occupation - Service, R/o Ward No. 12, Near Shriram Mandir, Surki Talab, Nawagarh, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Office Of Patwari Halka No. 18, Tahsil Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Offiver (Revenue), Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Addl. A. G. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 08/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the respondent No 2 (Annexure P-1). B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the period of suspension till its revocation and to pay full salary from the suspension period. C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant increment to the petitioner which occurred to him in the month of July 2015 from till date and to add in his service book. D. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. Cost of the petition. 2 2. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner is currently serving as a Patwari in Patwari Halka No. 23 (presently Halka No. 18) since January 25, 2012. A complaint was filed to Respondent No. 3 by Ramnihora Tiwari, alleging that the petitioner failed to issue a 'Rin-Pustika' even after an application was submitted. Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, which was received on May 20, 2015. The petitioner submitted a reply on May 22, 2015, asserting that no such application from Ramnihora Tiwari had been received or was pending before him. It is further submitted that the complainant and his son, Bhupendra Tiwari (also currently working as a Patwari), pressured the petitioner to issue the Rin-Pustika with a back date. The petitioner refused to issue the specific Rin-Pustika they had brought with them. Respondent No. 3, however, without considering the fact that no application pertaining to issuance of Rin Pushtila filed by complainant is pending before the petitioner and a detailed reply has also been filed to this effect the respondent No.3 has arbitrarily passed the impugned order of suspension. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3, without fully considering the petitioner's reply or revoking his suspension, issued a charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his reply to charge memorandum and thereafter the newly posted Tahsildar, Nawagarh, has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. During the course of inquiry, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the statement of the complainant and one more witness but had not provided any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. It is also submitted that the complainant, in his complaint, had mentioned that he had submitted an application before the Tahsildar, but the Tahsildar who was posted at that relevant time had not been made a witness who could be important to testify that the petitioner had not issued the Rin Pustika, which is the only allegation against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer also had not given an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence or produce witnesses in his support, and therefore, the entire inquiry proceedings are vitiated in the eyes of law. The Enquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report, which is not certain and the charges also could not be proved against the petitioner, but Respondent No. 3 illegally passed an order of 3 punishment by imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment (with non- cumulative effect). The SDO (Sub-Divisional Officer) had also not passed any order regarding the period of suspension and reinstatement, and furthermore, the increment accrued to the petitioner in the month of July 2015 has also not been added in his account. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Writ Petition Bearing No. WPS 5008/2016. The aforementioned writ petition came up for hearing on 04.01.2016, and the Hon'ble High Court, looking to the remedy of the appeal as provided under Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two weeks and also directed the Appellate Authority to decide the same, preferably within a period of three months. The petitioner, in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, filed an appeal on 12.01.2016 immediately after receiving a copy of the order. However, Respondent No. 2, without considering the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner inter alia with an allegation that he has not prepared the Rin Pushtika in the name of Shri Ramnihora Tiwari S/o Pawan Prasad Tiwari Resident of Dhanora Tahsil Nawagarh District Bemetara. Further allegation is that in the Lok Suraj Abhiyan complainant Ramnihora Tiwari has given applications, bank challans and affidavit also and despite that Rin Pushtika was not prepared by the petitioner by which he violated the Lok Suraj Abhiyan. On these two issues, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry report was submitted. It appears that the petitioner has committed some negligence in his work. It has been further observed that as the petitioner is under suspension, his suspension may be revoked, and he may be placed in some other patwari Halka. However, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer did not agree to the findings of the enquiry officer to reinstate the petitioner and instead imposed a minor punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect. Against this, the 4 petitioner preferred an appeal before the Statutory appellate Authority i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate District Bemetara Chhattisgarh and the appeal was also dismissed. He further submits that if the Enquiry Officer did not propose any punishment to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate Authority committed an error of law by imposing the minor punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect. Therefore, the impugned orders of imposing punishment and appellate order may be set aside. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in WPS No.2119 of 2011 Rudranarayan Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh dated 18.06.2018. 4. Per contra, Mr. Gupta submits that the report of the Enquiry Officer clearly indicates that the petitioner was found to have committed some negligence in performing his duties. Though the Inquiry report stated that his suspension may be revoked and he may be placed in some other Halka number, however, the disciplinary authority is not bound by the report of the enquiry officer and he could take its own independent decision. Looking to the charges against the petitioner that he did not prepare the ‘Rin Pushtika’ in time, despite the application being made under the Lok Suraj Abhiyan which is a premier program of State Government, the lackadaisical approach of the petitioner warranted the imposition of a minor punishment. Even otherwise, he submits that the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him in any manner, as it is distinguishable on facts. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and two charges have been leveled which are quoted herein-below:- 1-यह कि ग्राम भदौरा प.ह.नं. 23/17 म श्री रामकिनंहरा किवारा आ. बावानंप्रसादौ किवारा किनंवासा ग्राम धनंरा, हसाल नंवागढ़ उसा नंम परा 0.57 ह. भ मिम ह" जि$सा आ$ दिदौनं ऋण प(स्ति* आ$ नंह+ बानं ह"। 2-यह कि ल सा(रा$ अभिभयनं दौरानं आवादौ द्वारा ऋण प(स्ति* बानंनं लिलए आवादौनं पत्र साथ बा4 चालनं, शपथपत्र दिदौय $नं बादौ भ आप द्वारा ऋणप(स्ति* बानंरा आवादौ नंह+ दिदौय $नं ल सा(रा$ अभिभयनं अवाहलनं किय $नं ह"। 5 7. From the enquiry, it appears that the petitioner was found to have committed some negligence in preparing the ‘Rin Pushtika’. The law in this regard is well settled that the power of the Courts in interference under judicial review in the departmental enquiry is limited and could be exercised only if any procedural irregularity or illegality is found, or if a violation of the principal of natural justice is established. No argument was advanced in this regard. However, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the procedural part of the impugned order. The other submission is made that the Disciplinary Authority was bound by the Enquiry Officer, who had not proposed any punishment. Therefore, it is liable to be rejected. The Enquiry Officer had conducted an enquiry and stated that the petitioner would be reinstated in some other Halka number. The Disciplinary Authority, however considered the enquiry report and imposed the minor punishment. As stated above, the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the proposal, if any, made by the Enquiry Officer, and independently came to a conclusion after the guilt of the petitioner had already been found. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority also, in detail, has discussed the submissions made in the statutory appeal and also came to a conclusion that the appeal does not have any merit and rejected the same. The reliance on the judgment by petitioner is distinguishable on the facts of the instant case and does not help him in facts of this case. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this case, and the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.14 12:14:55 +0530