Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7659-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 97 of 2025 1 - Shailendra Prasad Rathore S/o Late Siyalal Rathore Aged About 48 Years R/o Mq-22, Azad Chowk, Deepka Colony, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Secl Headquarter, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager Secl, Gevra Project, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - K.C. Mohanta Senior Manager (Mines)/ Inquiry Officer, Secl Gevra Project, District - Korba Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4 - Smt. Santoshi Bai D/o Jhaduram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bandhapali, P.O. - Pidiya, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/02/2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant who was the writ petitioner before the writ Court against the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3749/2023, whereby the writ
Decision
petition filed by the writ appellant is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to examine the complainant namely Smt. Santoshi Bai in the pending departmental inquiry within the period of 30 days from today i.e. from the date of passing of the order dated 20.12.2024. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Parvati Bai was holding certain land at village Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba which was acquired by SECL in the year 2003-04. As per the rehabilitation scheme, one of the family member of the land oustee would be given employment and for that purpose said Parvati Bai has nominated the present petitioner for appointment in the SECL. By order dated 18.09.2007 the petitioner was appointed on the post of General Mazdoor Category- 1, with the SECL. After about 11 years of his appointment, on 18.09.2018, the respondent No. 4 have made a complaint that the petitioner is not the adopted son of Parvati Bai and he obtained appointment in the SECL on the forged document. On the said complaint the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and ultimately departmental inquiry was initiated and is pending. In the said departmental inquiry the respondent No.4 had submitted her affidavit but she was not produced such witness in the said inquiry, therefore, the petitioner had made an application before the inquiry officer on 24.02.2023 and prayed for calling of the respondent No.4 as witness. The application filed by the petitioner was not considered by the inquiry officer and then the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the departmental inquiry proceeding. The said writ petition was came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 20.12.2024 and the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner with a direction 3 to the petitioner to examine the complainant namely Smt. Santoshi Bai in the said departmental inquiry proceeding and the inquiry report dated 26.05.2023 Annexure P/19 is quashed which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge has directed the writ appellant/writ petitioner to examine the complainant/respondent No.4 and the complainant is the witness of the department on whose complaint the departmental inquiry was initiated, therefore, it is for the department to get her examined and she would be cross-examined by the petitioner. He would further submits that the time limit fixed by the impugned order is also affect the legal rights of the petitioner and the peremptory order has been passed that if the petitioner fails to examine the complainant within 30 days, the respondents would be at liberty to take a decision in the departmental inquiry, therefore, the impugned order suffers by material irregularity and perversity and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the issue involved in the writ petition as well as the material produced in the petition and has rightly decided the same which needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. From perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition as well as document annexed thereto, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has made an application before the inquiry officer for examination of the complainant Smt. Santoshi Bai as the witness as she is the material and necessary witness in the departmental inquiry on whose instance the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was initiated. Since the petitioner himself has moved an application for examining the complainant Smt. Santoshi Bai as the witness. Since she was considered to be the material witness 4 she can made statement before the inquiry officer either from complainant side or from the employee side and other party have their right to cross-examine her. Since the petitioner himself had filed an application for examination of the complainant, the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to get her examined in the departmental inquiry proceeding within 30 days from the date of the order and if he failed to examine the complainant, the inquiry officer would be at liberty to take decision in the departmental inquiry. 8. The consideration of the learned Single Judge based on proper appreciation of the material produced in the writ petition and we are also in the agreement with the consideration of the learned Single Judge and does not found any ground to interfere in the same. 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case and there is no fault in the impugned order. 10. In the result, the writ appeal being devoid of merit and liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.02.22 10:58:17 +0530