1 2025:CGHC:13345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1167 of 2020 1 - D. K. Chandrakar S/o Shri Baldau Chandrkar Aged About 45 Years Accountant- Smt. P. G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chouk, Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya- Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Raipur District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Governing Body (Constituted Under Statute 28 Of College Code Of C.G. Vishwavidyalay Adhinium 1973), Through- The Secretary To The Governing Body Office Of Principal Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chouk, Raipur , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. P. G. Daga Girls College Through- The Principal, Smt. P. G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chouk, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Principal Smt. P. G. Daga Girls College, Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chouk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rashriya Vidyalaya Samiti Through- The Secretary Rasthriya Vidyalaya Samiti Bal Ashram, Kutchery Chouk, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- 1. To quash the order dated 31.07.2019 : ANNEX-P/1: passed by Respondent -4 and permit the Petitioner to perform his duties on the post of “Accountant’ with all consequential benefits. 2. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court considers proper under the circumstances of the case, may kindly be awarded.” 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of “Accountant” vide order dated 26.08.2010 under the establishment of Higher Education Institute namely “Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Raipur” {henceforth “College”}. The said Institute is imparting education in the field of Higher Education, which is managed by the Society namely “Rastriya Vidyalaya Samiti” {henceforth, ‘Samiti’). The management of the College is administered and managed by the Governing Body constituted under Section 6 of the Statute 28 of College Code, which is framed under Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The said college is receiving the salary and maintenance grant from the State Government. 3 2.1 Alleging misconduct, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner employee and Principal of the College has appointed Enquiry Officer to the person, who is member of Foundation Society of the Samiti (respondent No. 5). The Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry submitted enquriy report dated 31.10.2018 to the Principal of the College holding guilty to the petitioner. Based on that enquiry report, Principal / respondent No. 4 passed impugned order dated 31.07.2019 terminating the petitioner from services. 2.2. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed instant petitioner questioning the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Smt. P. G. Daga Girls College, Raipur / respondent No. 3 is 100% government aided college. The petitioner was posted on the post of ‘Accountant’ in the said College. His salary was also being paid by the College from the ‘aid’ received from the State Government. He would further submit that service conditions of such employee shall be governed by the Act namely “The Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978” (henceforth “Adhiniyam, 1978”) and the ‘Niyam’ namely Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ko Padachyut Karne Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 (henceforth “Niyam, 1983”). Section 6 (a)(iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1978 provides procedure for ‘dismissal’ or ‘removal’ of the employee from service or termination of his service and procedure has been provided in Niyam 7(1)(e) of the Niyam 1983, according to which, if any enquiry is required to be conducted against the employee of the Educational Institution, then Head of Institution shall be an “Enquiry 4 Officer’. In the instant case, Principal of College / respondent No. 4 was Head of the Institution, therefore, enquiry ought to have been conducted by respondent No. 4 itself. But, the Principal of the College appointed a person, who was member of the foundation society of the Samiti (respondent No. 5 herein), who is not a competent person to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. As such, counsel for the petitioner submits that inquiry conducted against the petitioner is ab-initio void, hence, impugned order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 4 may be set aside and the relief sought for may be granted to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5, who are main contesting party in the instant petition, while referring to its return would submit that respondent No. 3 – Smt. P. G. Daga Girls College, Raipur is not a 100% Government aided college, rather it was receiving ‘ad hoc grant’ and not the maintenance grant. Further, appointment of the petitioner was not made with the concurrence of the Higher Education Department of Government of Chhattisgarh, therefore, service condition of the petitioner shall not be governed with the ‘Adhiniyam, 1978’ and ‘Niyam, 1983’, rather service condition of the petitioner will govern under Statute No. 28 of the College Code (Annexure R-6) wherein clause 15 (3)(c) of part V of the said statute give power to the Principal to appoint, promote, grant leave, suspend and take disciplinary action against the class III and class IV employees of the college and Clauses 31 (2) & (3) provides procedure for imposing penalty against the employee of the college, which will be the procedure for imposing penalty on government servant prescribed by the Chhattisgharh Government, meaning thereby, procedure prescribed in Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Civil Services (Classification, Control & 5 Appeal) Rules, 1966 shall be applicable. He further submits that under authority of aforesaid provisions of statute, Principal / respondent No. 4 - Appointing authority, who conducted enquiry and after due enquriy, that too, by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, enquiry report was submitted holding guilty to the petitioner and based on that enquriy report, his employment has been terminated, which is very well in accordance with law. He further submits that sub-Section (4) of Section 1 and clause (e) of Section 2 of Adhiniyam, 1978 are applicable to those institutions, which are receiving ‘maintenance grant’ from the State Government, but respondent No. 3 / College is receiving ‘ad hoc grant’ and not ‘maintenance grant’, therefore, service condition of the petitioner shall not be governed under the Adhiniyam, 1978’ and ‘Niyam 1983’ framed thereunder. In this regard, he also referred to clause 1 (a) (ii) & (iii) of College Code (Annexure R-7). He lastly submitted that since enquiry has been conducted under Statute 28 framed under Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyala Adhiniyam, 1973, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get relief as sought for by him. 5. Counsel for the State / respondents No. 1 has extended his support to the submission made by counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as ‘Accountant’ of Smt. P.G. Daga Girls College, Raipur. It was also not in disputed by counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 that salary was being paid to the petitioner from the ‘aid’ received from the State Government. According to counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5, respondent No. 3 / College is not a 100% 6 government aided college, rather while referring to Annexure R-5, he stated that it received only 50% aid from the State Government, but this submission is not found to be true, because as per order dated 30.9.2013 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, respondent No. 3/College was granted up to 50% for first year, 75% for second year and 100% for third year from the date of issuance of aforesaid order. Impugned order was passed in the year 2019, meaning thereby, at that time, respondent No. 3 / College was 100% aided college by the State Government. Even, page No. 71 of the petition {which is demand letter of teaching / non-teaching staff from July 2016 to March 2017 (on the basis of 50% salary grant)}, also contains name of the petitioner at Serial No.11, which shows that salary was paid to the petitioner from the ‘aid’ received from the State Government. 8. Perusal of order dated 18.7.2023 (Annexure R-5) shows that vide aforesaid order 50% amount was released against the demand made by the College, therefore, on the basis of such document, the order dated 30.9.2013 (Annexure P-17) cannot be discarded whereby 100% grant has been sanctioned for the respondent No. 3 -College by the State Government, therefore, the argument advanced by counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 that respondent No. 3/college received 'ad hoc' grants is not sustainable, rather it is found to have received 'maintenance grants' for payment of salaries to the employees of the college. 9. As per Section 1(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1978, it shall apply to all institutions falling under clause (e) of Section 2, which is reproduced below :- 7 “2. Definition – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) “Institution” means a Non-Government School or Non- Government Educational Institution for higher education for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government or from the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Adudan Ayog, as the case may be, established, administered and managed by a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 44 of 1973) but does not include an institution established, administered and manged by - (i) the Central Government; or (ii) the State Government; or (iii) a local authority; or ((iv) any agency managed, controlled, approved or sponsored by the Central Government or the State Government, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. (f) “Grant” means a grant given to the institution as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time; (g) “Management” in relation to any institution means the governing body thereof within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 44 of 1973), and the expression management of the institution shall be construed accordingly; 10. Thus, since respondent No. 3/College is a 100% government aided college, receiving ‘maintenance grant’ for payment of salaries to the employees including petitioner (which is evident from page No. 71 of the writ petition), therefore, it is governed under the Adhiniyam, 1978’ and ‘Niyam 8 1983’ framed thereunder. Hence, contention of learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 is not acceptable that service condition of the petitioner shall be governed with the Statute No. 28 framed under C.G. Vishwavidyala Adhiniyam, 1973, instead, as respondent No. 3 – College is 100 % aided college and the petitioner was also paid salary from the aid / maintenance grant received from the Government, therefore, his service condition shall be governed under the Adhihiyam, 1978’ and ‘Niyam 1983’ framed thereunder. 11. Section 6 (a) (iii) of the Adhiniyam, 1978 provides procedure for ‘dismissal’ or ‘removal’ or ‘termination’ from services of employee of the College, which reads thus :- “6. Prohibition on creation of posts and appointments of staff and termination of services. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any rules, regulations, bye-laws, statutes or regulations made thereunder,- (a) on and from the appointed date, - (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) [ no teacher or other employees shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services terminated except by an order passed after following such procedures as may be prescribed ]” Under the authority of aforesaid provision, the State Government has prescribed / framed ‘Niyam 1983’. As per Rule 7 (1)(e) of Niyam 1983, in case of enquiry against any employee, the ‘Head of Institution’ shall be appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In instant case, the Principal / respondent 9 No. 4 is ‘Head of the Institution’ / respondent No. 4, as such, it ought to have conducted enquiry, but it did not conduct enquiry against the petitioner, rather it appointed a person under Statute No. 28 (Annexure R-6), who was member of Foundation Society of Samiti (respondent No. 5) and it conducted the enquiry, but as has been discussed above that service condition of petitioner will not be governed under the Statute No. 28, therefore, appointment of Enquiry Officer by the Principal / respondent No. 4 was bad in law. 12. Perusal of Rules 8 to 12 of Niyam, 1983 shows that Enquiry Officer shall submit report to the Management for taking decision. But in the instant case, neither enquiry was conducted by the ‘Head of the Institution’ i.e. Principal / respondent No. 4 nor enquiry report was produced before Management (governing body) of the college for taking consideration of the enquiry report, rather Principal / respondent No. 4 itself accepted enquiry report and based on that enquiry report, services of the petitioners was terminated vide impugned order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-1), which is against the provisions contained in Adhiniyam, 1978’ and ‘Niyam 1983’ framed thereunder, as such, enquiry proceeding instituted against the petitioner was bad in law ab-initio. Therefore, it is held that order impugned dated 31.07.2019 has been passed against the aforesaid provisions contained in Adhihiyam, 1978’ and ‘Niyam 1983’ framed thereunder, hence the same deserves to be set aside / quashed. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) is set aside / quashed. The respondents No. 2 & 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of 10 “Accountant” with all consequential benefits. However, respondent No. 3 / College is at liberty to conduct enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. No cost (s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.25 10:41:54 +0530