2025:CGHC:5037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 780 of 2025 • 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(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi 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. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgiya, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. Instant petition 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. 2. Facts of the case, is that, the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted on the post of Under Secretary in the Department of School Education, State of Chhattisgarh. While the petitioner was posted on the side post, that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 23.12.2019 upon allegation that the petitioner without obtaining the approval from the competent authority concerning administrative action against the complainant had written letter to the Directorate of Public Instruction for taking action against the complainant directly in a case where the name of the petitioner was also included in the complaint. The petitioner submitted his response to the said charge-sheet on 28.12.2019, but then the authorities were not inclined to consider the stand taken with the petitioner, and therefore the departmental enquiry was proceeded with. It is pertinent to mention that the 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. Be that as it may, the petitioner was proceeded with in the departmental enquiry, and the petitioner raised his grounds demonstrating that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were misconceived. In the departmental enquiry, the statements of the departmental witnesses were recorded behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. The enquiry ofÏcer proceeded to submit the enquiry report on 24.12.2021, wherein it was alleged that few of the charge levelled against the petitioner were partially proved while the others were proved. The petitioner again submitted his reply to the said report on 10.01.2022. At this junction, it shall also be relevant to point out that against the petitioner the General Administration Department instituted two more departmental enquiries containing absolutely misconceived and misplaced allegations. However, even in the said departmental enquiries the enquiry ofÏcer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. All the three departmental enquiries were clubbed together in an absolutely illegal manner without their being any enabling provision for the same and the state government proceeded to impose a consolidated punishment upon the petitioner. The said act on part of the respondent authorities was absolutely contrary to the statutory provisions of law as contained under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The 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 impugned order dated 06.10.2023 is absolutely illegal and grossly arbitrary, since the said order was issued in utter violation of the provisions of law as contained under the Rules, 1966. Respondent No. 2 did not apply its mind to the material placed on record by the petitioner and proceeded to impose the punishment in an absolutely high-handed manner. It was not considered by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct. The petitioner was proceeded with the departmental enquiry for no fault on part of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 imposed the punishment without application of mind. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of punishment on 09.04.2024. However, vide order dated 29.05.2024, the appeal / representation submitted by the petitioner was refused by the state government, with a direction that it be preferred before the competent appellate authority. That, the petitioner has already preferred W.P.(S) No. 8532/2024 and W.P.(S) No. 8490/2024 against the impugned order. The said writ petitions were disposed off vide order dated 10.01.2025. Hence, this petition. 3. 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 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. 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat