Ram Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Chhattisgarh

Judgment

1. State of Chhattisgarh through District 85 Session Judge Distt.-Surguja (Ambikapi.u') ~ '2. ^ (C.G.) The District < /ff<:l .<«• Surguja (Ambikapur) C.G, „ ( ^ _ hS>^_ ^>h*' 3. - • • [* . r?9" \ \ —- —^ _-. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspiir „..- - - • • through the Registrar General. 85 Session Judge Distt. ^ \p .•^ 6V- WRIT PETmON' U/A 226-227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f^FR. .23.</-U y

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 4557 of 2006 PETITIONER Ram Kumar Chaudhary RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on .£2"dayofApriI, 2012. .-i5. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "<fc o HIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BLLASPU^? WRIT PETITION N0. 4557 of 2006 PETITIONER Ram Kumar Chaudhary RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla with Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State/ respondent No.1. ShriSanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate forthe respondents No.2 & 3. (Delivered on ^^.'day ofApril, 2012)

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ to quash the impugned order dated 14.09.2002 (Annexure P-5), whereunder, the petitioner was removed from the service under the provisions of Rule 10(9) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) "the Rules, 1996") and further, it was directed Rules, 1966 (for short to deposita sum ofRs.18,111/-forloss of 180.440 kg of copper wire, and impugned order dated 28.04.2006 (Annexure P-6), whereunder, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court.

2. The facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Junior Naib Nazir in Civil Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya from 26.07.1997 to 05.02.2001. In criminal case No.58/1998, there was a direction to return the seized articles i.e. the copper wire of 270 kg to the accused persons namely Nasrudin and Ramesh Kumar Tamrakar. It was found that the copper wire returned was

180.400 kg. less out of 270 kg which was worth Rs.18,111/-. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet was issued on April, 2001 alongwith articles of charges and list of witnesses. The petitioner submitted his reply on

02.05.2001 (Annexure P-3). The Civil Judge Class-ll Baikunthpur 1\ U9sq }QU seq 9ou'e.[sp p Afiunpoddo jedojd 'jsuueuj leoiLieqosLu e ui pessiiusjp ussq OS|B seq |esddB SL|J^ •pe}B!)!A A[|nj si Ajinbue eqt 6uip|OL| jo^ UMOp pie) se ejnpsoojd aq) leq) papustuoo os|e si }| •s •SOIAJSS ui pa)B)Sui9j sq jsuo!l]}sd 941 pue peqsenb eq ZOOZ'60'frl. 'qons se 'pue spe^ SL)} pue souepiAe pe^ep jepjo IEAOLUSJ 34} y> }os siues sq} uo seBjeqo eqi LUOJJ. psuinboB SBM jsuoiiitsd eq} leq} pspus}uoo jsi^fjnj si y •OI.OZ'WfrZ psiep JSpJO Aq ssGjeqo pe6s||B 9q; p psninboe ussq seq jauoiliisd sq} pue jepun jsuoiuted sq} ^suieBe p9j3}siBej SBM SSBO IBUILUUO B '•B>| QOP uoiioeg QZZ 'O'd'l p 8JIM jaddoo |B)O} eq) LUOJ^ 6^) OOt^'OSl. 10 sso| ps)B}s-3Aoqe 8q} JQJ }BL|} si.iiuqns jsuoi)!}9d 94} JQ^ 6uuBsdde |asunoo peujesi 'e|>|nqs WS •(9-d 'p3|y sjnxeuuy) QOOZ'WQZ PSfBp jspjo Aq passiLusip OS|B SBM qoiqM SBM |e8dde ue 'isuieBBSjeqi •j9UO]}!}sd sq} Aq suosjsd p9(eis-SAoqe 'SJIM jeddoo B>] O0t''081. 1° 3n|BA sqi o} psujniej }ou SBM qoiqM eL|}se-/|.|.i.'9|.'syp luns 34} ijsodep o} pepejip jeq}jn^ pue SGOIAJSS ys |BAOLuaj p jspjo sqf psssed 'iusujqsiund pssodojd QV^ uo aoiiou asneo /woqs sq} 0} jeuoi}!)ed sq} p Ajdaj 841 Buuepisuoo pue yodej aqi Buildsooe jeye 'A}uoqinv AjeuiidiosiQ syj. •ss6jeqo sq} BuiAusp A|dej siq peniiuqns jsuoitiisd 9L|i qoiqM 0} SOOZ'ZO'Zl. uo psnssi SBM soi^ou ssneo Moqs puooss e '^iodsj Ajinbuo sq) jo idisoej UQ •9SBO 841 L|S!iqe}ss 01 peiiej SBL| uoitnossojd 84} 'eaAoidiue }usnbui|3p sq} jo ISGJJB ejopq soi|od sqi Aq epoo |BU9d ueipui p /g|. uoipeg y) suoisjAojd sq} p soueiidiuoo-uou -Apo)sno jo^ }eqt ps/uesqo jeqyn.} sem )i sqt ui sjnoq gf? ueq} SJOLU (usds sq 'snqi •l.l.OS'ZO'SO uo >|oop,o 'Ajinbus sq) u| 0^:91. 11!» Apojsno ui peuieiuaj pue [.OOZ'ZO'90 "o >|00p,o Op:Q\, ps)sajje SBM J9uo!)!}sd sq} }Bq} p|sq jsi))jn^ SBM i| }B 'psAojd SEM •B^ OOfr'081. P BUISSILU pue 6>| QZZ ^o SJIM jeddoo |e)0} aq) )|oeq Buiujn}aj »ou p eBjBLio 94} ieqi Buipioq (i^-d ajnxsuuy) ZOOZ'ZO'90 uo pSHjujqns seM yodej Aiinbue aqi 'jsoy^o ^ijnbua se psiuiodde SGM ^;'^\ I B''ai»<»s"sg p .^ '-%^;'\. ^ 3 afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner did not know about the total weight of the copper wire, as the same was not weighed before it was deposited in the Nazarat. The petitioner has made serious allegation of personal grudge and malafide against the Enquiry Officer, which was alsonot examined and considered. The seized article was produced by the concerned Police Station after lapse of more than two years from the date of seizure. Thus, the quantity of copper wire was not reliable. It is also contended that the inquest of the article was not been produced in the departmental enquiry. The Reader, D.L.Dewangan, being the most relevant person, ought to have been examined in the enquiry proceeding. The same was not done and the two other witnesses were also not examined. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that after registration of a criminal case in crime No.294/2000 for the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C., the petitioner was arrested on

04.02.2011 and remained in custody up to 12.02.2001. The petitioner was served a proper charge sheet along with the list of documents and witnesses. The conduct of the petitioner, as alleged, comes within the definition of "misconduct". The Presenting Officer examined four witnesses and flled documents to prove the charges. The enquiry report was submitted after holding the proper enquiry with regard to missing of 180.400 kg. copper wire from the custody of the petitioner and it was found proved as the same was dully received by the petitioner and he failed to return the entire quantity. The petitioner was earlier punished in connection of missing of the file in civil suit No.164-A/1991 by order dated 26.08.1997 withholding two increments with cumulative effect.

7. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. '"»,, 'Vy,sf .d»'J -S'^y^'";^

8. The petitiorier has made several allegations in respect of conduct of the enquiry. However, the petitioner has failed to point out asto whetherthe allegation made beforethis Court, was ever raised either before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority and also before the appellate authority. The petitioner has further failed to establish that any particular part ofthe enquiry, which was not based on proper evidence, was vitiated and perverse. The allegations of malafide, no opportunity of hearing, no examination of relevant persons are not supported by any documents or proof. If the Reader was not examined by the prosecution, the petitioner ought to have made an application for examining the Reader, who after receiving '"^.- the seized articles had handed over the same to the petitioner for keeping in Nazarat. The petitioner had not produced any documents, wherein, he had raised any objection, as aforesaid, in the enquiry proceeding. In all the replies submitted, pursuant to the show cause notice and also after second show cause notice proposing punishment, charges were denied by the petitioner. Since the seized articles was not weighed at the time of receipt of the same, it cannot be held that the weight of the seized article was not 270 kg. The petitioner has not produced anything in support of this contention. Thus, the enquiry cannot be vitiated being perverse.

9. The petitioner is a member of the judicial department, wherein, the degree of integrity and conduct required is of the highest nature. Edifice of the judiciary is based on trust and confidence of the people in administration of justice as well as in other connected wprks. The enquiry was initiated on the complaint of one of the persons, who was entitled to receive back the copper wire weighing 270 kg., as seized by the police and thereafter, handed over in the custody ofthe petitioner in Nazarat. After proper enquiry, it was found proved.

10. If all the officers/employees connected with administration ofjustice, do not possess highest degree of integrity and honesty in all their works, the faith of the people may be collapsed. The conduct of the petitioner must be such, which upholds the dignity of the judicial system.

11. In M/s. Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. V. Their Workmen & Another1, the Supreme Court observed as under: "In our view when an employer loses confidence in his employee particularly in respect of a person he is discharging an office of trust and confidence there can reinstatement..........." justification directing

12. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narendra Singh, Supreme Court held as under : "12. It is not in dispute that the standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case and in a departmental proceeding are distinct and different. Whereas in a criminal case, it is essential to prove a charge beyond all in a departmental proceeding preponderance of probability would serve the purpose. (See Kamaladevi Agarwal v. StateofW.B.) reasonable doubt, It is now well settled by reason of a catena of 13. decisions of this Court that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same in the event an order of acquittal is passed".

13. The Supreme Court in Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan , observed as under: "19. It will be useful to note that in State ofPunjab v. Sukhwinder Singh this Court has held that the words "gravest act of misconduct" occurring in Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules need not be used in the order of punishment, as it can be found out from the factual matrix obtaining in each case. However, there is another aspect of the matter 20. which cannot be tost sight of. The respondent, in the meanwhile, has been acquitted. The factum of his acquittal has been taken into consideration by the Division Bench, which was considered to be an additional factor. Ordinarily, the question as to whether in a criminal case will be conctusive in regard acquittal imposed upon the to the order of punishment delinquent officer in a departmental proceeding is a 1 2 3