1 2025:CGHC:14055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5674 of 2018 1 - Arun Kumar Saha S/o Late Shri R.P. Saha, Aged About 57 Years R/o Labour Colony, House No. 37, Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurvedic Officer, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commissioner, Durg Division Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) and WPS No. 1264 of 2021 1 - Arun Kumar Saha S/o Late Shri R. P. Saha Aged About 59 Years R/o Labour Colony, House No. 37, Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Ayurvedic Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commissioner Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- holding the brief of Mr. Barun Kumar Chakraborthy, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03.2025 Heard. 1. In WPS No.5674 of 2018, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned punishment order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. In WPS No.1264 of 2021, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order 19.01.2021 (Annexure P- 1) or the impugned order Annexure P-1 may be suspended till the final disposal of W.P.S. No. 5674/2018, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Learned Advocates, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted by the Collector and according to the Circular issued by the State Government, the Collector is vested with the power to inflict only minor 3 penalties whereas in the present case, a major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted against the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Grade-III at the relevant time. They would further submit that Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 deals with the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against Government Servants and thus, the present petitions may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava and Mr. Dubey. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. A specific query was made as to who is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. 7. Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner could not answer the query. The circulars cannot supersede the Recruitment Rules or the Service Rules. 8. A perusal of the documents would show that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Grade-II under respondent No.3. One complaint was made by Smt. Saraswati Verma against the petitioner with regard to misbehavior. The other employees made a complaint with regard to the demand for bribes. An article of charge was issued with the allegations that (i) the petitioner misbehaved with his colleagues; (ii) he demanded bribes from the Government servants to pass TA bills and (iii) -4- he used to send obscene messages to female colleagues. The Additional Collector, District Rajnandgaon constituted a Committee to inquire into the matter. A report was submitted wherein the allegations were not found proven. In the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer conducted a full- fledged inquiry and submitted its report whereby the allegations were not found proven by the majority. The Collector inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 09.11.2016. 9. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Durg Division and it was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2018. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P/1) by filing this petition. 10. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not raised grounds with regard to the competency of the disciplinary authority. This issue was not raised before the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority and for the first time, this issue has been raised during the course of arguments. 11. It is a well-settled principle of law that the disciplinary authority may concur with the report of the inquiry officer or may have a different view. 12. In the present case, the disciplinary authority while exercising its discretion inflicted a penalty of stoppage of two increments. The Appellate Authority has affirmed those findings. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. According to the Service Rules, the 5 appointing authority of the petitioner was Divisional Joint Director. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the Collector had no authority of law to exercise the power of the disciplinary authority. There is no allegation with regard to the procedural part of the departmental inquiry. 14. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, both petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha