ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 15/05/2017 (Annexure P/1). iii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 11/10/2013 (Annexure P/2). iv. To kindly direct the respondents to grant full salary of the entire period to the petitioner with interest. v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was in army from 1991 to 2007 at the post of Havaldar (Clerk), Madras Engineering Group and centre, Banglore. The petitioner took voluntary retirement from army in November, 2007. Thereafter, in February 2009 the petitioner had joined the State Service and he was appointed on the post of AG- III, District Sainik Welfare Office, Jagdalpur (CG). On 15/6/2012, a complaint was made against Late Suryakant Verma and the petitioner by one Ram Murti Pandey alleging demand of money from relatives of died or retired soldiers on account of. In alleged complaint allegation has been leveled that the petitioner and Late Suryakant Verma had demanded money from 6 persons. Vide covering memo dated 23/6/2012, the Deputy Collector (District Welfare Officer) sought clarification. The petitioner on 27/6/2012 submitted its clarification and demanded all relevant documents, but the same were not supplied to him and ex-parte primary inquiry was conducted by Deputy Collector, Bastar (District Welfare Officer) and submitted its report dated 19/7/2012 to the Collector. Upon receipt of the show notice, Suryakant Verma allegedly committed suicide on 03/07/2012. The petitioner was also transferred to the District Sainik Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. Thereafter again show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28/09/2012 which was replied by the petitioner on 09/10/2012 and again a prayer was made with reference to earlier reply dated 27/6/2012 and the petitioner demanded the requisite documents, but same were not supplied. Without supplying the requisite documents, all of sudden the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21/12/2012 and was attached in the office of District Welfare Office Jagdalpur from the Office of District Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. On 17/1/2013 the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. Without supplying the requisite documents, all of sudden the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21/12/2012 and was attached in the office of District Welfare Office Jagdalpur from the Office of District Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. On 17/1/2013 the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. On 28/01/2013 moved yet another application for grant of relevant documents to enable the petitioner to make an effective reply. The petitioner specifically asked for the complaints and the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry which made the basis of the charge sheet, but the same were not supplied. The petitioner was provided with some of the documents but most of them were not provided in the name of not being in the office. On 28/1/2013 the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought as many as 18 documents, out of which only 10 were supplied. The petitioner on 08/07/2013 once again made a request for providing relevant documents and specifically stated that mere cross examination would not be sufficient opportunity, but the same went in vain. The departmental inquiry was completed against the petitioner without proper opportunity. The petitioner on 05/08/2013 replied to the enquiry report and objected to the erroneous findings of the enquiry officer. On 18/9/2013 the respondent no.3 served a final notice to the petitioner proposing the major penalty of termination from service. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 27/9/2013. The petitioner was thereafter terminated from service by the order dated 11/10/2013. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal challenging the decision of the authority. The appeal of the petitioner was kept unnecessarily pending without a single hearing. The petitioner moved a representation before the State Government on 25/06/2015, but no action was taken on the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner made yet another representation on 28/12/2016 to the respondent No.1. Ultimately, the respondent no.1 has passed the final order dated 15/05/2017 and has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eye of law. The petitioner cannot be punished on the basis of misconduct not committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been imposed major punishment without any material against the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eye of law. The petitioner cannot be punished on the basis of misconduct not committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been imposed major punishment without any material against the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not act properly while not considering the fact that the petitioner has not demanded money from any of the victim and no material was considered by the enquiry officer and the enquiry report has been submitted on the basis of surmises of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority did not care to give reasons as mandated vide Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. The petitioner was not supplied with the relevant documents and the petitioner has been condemned unheard. The appellate authority did not mention any reason while passing the appeal rejection order. The impugned order is arbitrary and against all canons of administrative and service jurisprudence. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhagat Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 , Union of India and others vs Gyan Chand Chhattar, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 , Subedar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 765 and the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Kori vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2016) SCC Online (Chh) 295 and Lalit Pratap Singh vs Union of India, reported in (2022) SCC Online (Chh) 739. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the petitioner’s submission and submits that the District Sainik Kalyan Office Jagdalpur is the Divisional Office for Bastar Division and the said office is engaged in taking care of widows of Ex-Servicemen and also the dependants of Ex-Servicemen, who died while on duty. The said office is also engaged in the work of welfare of such widows and dependants. The said office is also engaged in the work of welfare of such widows and dependants. It was the duty of Welfare Organizer of the said office to visit the homes of Ex-Army Men in far flung areas of various districts atleast once in a month and enquire about their well being and also inform them about the various welfare schemes introduced by the Central/State Government, so as to ensure that no family is deprived from such benefits, but one Late Suryakant Verma, who was the Welfare Organizer along with the present petitioner, who was engaged as Assistant Grade III, were engaged in receiving illegal gratifications from affected family members and dependents of Ex- Servicemen/Army Men and created pressure by stating that if amount of money is not given in bribe, then pension and other benefits would be stopped. In the complaint, names of as many as seven persons were given from whom the Late Suryakant Verma and the present petitioner received the illegal gratifications for providing the Pensionary Benefits etc. Upon receiving the said complaint, complainant Ram Murty Sharma was summoned by issuing notice and statement of aggrieved/affected persons was also recorded. On 15/06/2012 a complaint was made with regard to persons in the District Sainik Welfare Office, Jagdalpur regarding demand of money by the office staff from the relatives of deceased or retired soldiers to whom amounts of money were to be disbursed in lieu as payment of insurance and financial assistance etc. Thereafter a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner dated 28/09/2012 to which the petitioner filed his reply (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension. Upon finding the said reply to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner was put under suspension. Thereafter a full fledged departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 14 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. On 04/05/2013, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed for conducting the said Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner submitted its reply to the chargesheet vide communication dated 04/05/2013. In the full fledged departmental enquiry, 10 departmental witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and one witness as a defence witness on behalf of the delinquent petitioner was also examined. The petitioner submitted its reply to the chargesheet vide communication dated 04/05/2013. In the full fledged departmental enquiry, 10 departmental witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and one witness as a defence witness on behalf of the delinquent petitioner was also examined. It is submitted that the provisions and Rule 14 of the C. G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was scrupulously adhered to, full and ample opportunity of hearing alongwith opportunity of cross-examining the departmental witnesses was afforded to the petitioner and upon conclusion of the detailed enquiry held as per the provisions of law and natural justice as also the principle of audi alteram partem and upon the conclusion of the departmental enquiry charge no.1 levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved. It is further submitted that against the finding of the enquiry report which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17/07/2013, the petitioner preferred a representation vide document Annexure P-11, but upon finding the charges against the petitioner to be proved and being of serious misconduct and taking into consideration the entirety of the circumstances, an order removing the petitioner from service dated 11/10/2013 was passed. The termination of the petitioner from service was also communicated to His Excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh. Against the said departmental enquiry and termination order, the petitioner herein preferred a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, State of Chhattisgarh under Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The departmental opinion in context of the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also sent to the Appellate Authority by the department. After considering the entirety of the aspect and delving into the opinion given by the department upon the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the order dated 15/05/2017 rejecting the appeal-cum-review preferred by the petitioner has been passed and the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk (AG-III) in the District Sarguja Welfare Office, Jagdalpur and on a complaint alleging illegal gratification of money received from the family of the ex soldiers for providing pension and other benefits, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order of removal from service was passed against him. Against this order, the petitioner filed appeal, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The main objection of the petitioner is that during departmental enquiry, he continuously demanded documents, but the documents were never supplied to him. Annexure-P/7 is a document filed by the petitioner dated 28.01.2013, whereby he demanded copy of 18 documents. Again he filed Annexure-P/9 on 08.07.2013, whereby he demanded copy of statement and application, deposition sheet etc. In his deposition dated 03.06.2013, again the petitioner stated that he demanded documents on several times but the documents were never supplied to him. 7. This Court in the matter of Lalit Pratap Singh (supra) held in paras 22 & 23 as under:- “22. When the department produced documents for proving of charges levelled against the delinquent employee which were in their favour, then it was also their duty to produce those documents, which were sought for by the delinquent employee to defend himself. But, in the instant case, it is clear that respondents produced only those documents which were favourable to them, but they did not produce those documents which were relevant for defence of the petitioner, despite the fact that those documents were held relevant to the charges, by the inquiry officer. 23. Hence, we find that, the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner culminating in removal of the petitioner from service, is not only vitiated for procedural illegality/irregularity, but also for violation of salutary principles of natural justice. Hence point No. (i) is decided in favour of the petitioner.” 8. Further, this Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Kori (supra) held in paras 18 & 19 as under:- “18. Apart from this, there are two more reasons not to uphold the order of termination. Hence point No. (i) is decided in favour of the petitioner.” 8. Further, this Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar Kori (supra) held in paras 18 & 19 as under:- “18. Apart from this, there are two more reasons not to uphold the order of termination. By virtue of sub-rule (8) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966, the Investigating Officer was required to enquire from the petitioner, who was Class-III employee, as to whether he is willing to take assistance of other Government servants in accordance with the Rules, 1966................................... 19. A bare perusal of the aforesaid memo would show that no information was given to the petitioner to take assistance of other Government servants, as required by sub-rule (8) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966.” 9. In the case in hand, the petitioner who is a Class-III employee has been terminated from service on the allegation of receiving illegal gratifications from affected family members and dependents of Ex- Servicemen/Army Men on account of providing pensionary benefits and other benefits, but it is clear from the documents that the information was not given to the petitioner to take assistance of other government servants as required under sub-rule (8) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966. The petitioner who is a Class-III employee repeatedly demanded documents, but the same were not supplied and even no acknowledgment of receipt of any document has been filed by the respondent department that these documents were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed his copy of statement, in which he stated that he repeatedly demanded documents from the department but no documents were supplied to him. The Appellate Authority also did not consider these aspects and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid legal proposition of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, I am inclined to hold that the departmental enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner and the punishment imposed upon him is illegal and not sustainable. Consequently the impugned orders dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure-P/1) and 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P/2) are hereby set aside. It is ordered that the petitioner will be reinstated in service. He will also be entitled for 50% back wages for the intervening period including all other consequential benefits. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if they so desire. 10. Consequently the impugned orders dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure-P/1) and 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P/2) are hereby set aside. It is ordered that the petitioner will be reinstated in service. He will also be entitled for 50% back wages for the intervening period including all other consequential benefits. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if they so desire. 10. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to costs.