PANNA LAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 29/4/2011 (Annexure P-4) by which respondent No.2 in exercising the review power under Sec. 29(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1966') converted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for one year to the penalty of removal from service.

(2.) In a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner for consuming liquor at public place and snatching Rs.200.00 from one Sahu Ram and for acting negligently in performance of his official duty, the Superintendent of Police, Korba/Disciplinary Authority by order dtd. 18/6/2009 (Annexure P-1) inflicted minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for one year. Against the order imposing penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 i.e. Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur. The Inspector General of Police/Respondent No.1 finding that the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal charge of robbery, set-aside the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh departmental proceedings for one charge except charge with regard to robbery from one Sahu Ram by order dtd. 21/12/2009 (Annexure P-2) in exercise of suo-motu revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 270(1) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. In second round of departmental enquiry, by order dtd. 7/10/2010 (Annexure P-3) the disciplinary authority directed for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for one year, against which, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dtd. 29/4/2011 (Annexure P-4) declined to consider the appeal on merits holding that he has already exercised suo-motu revisional jurisdiction on 21/12/2009 and invoked review power purportedly under Sec. 29(1) of the Rules of 1966 and inflicted penalty of removal from service and also held that for suspension period the petitioner will not be entitled for service benefits.

(3.) The petitioner has called in question the order dtd. 29/4/2011 (Annexure P-4) stating inter-alia that by exercising the review power, proviso to Rule 29(1) of the Rules 1966 has not been complied with and he has not been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the said penalty of removal from service and appeal ought to have been decided on merits, which has also not been considered.