Afr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15369 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5972 of 2019 Order Reserved on : 06.03.2025 Order Pronounced on : 02.04.2025 • Babulal Pachouri, S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad Pachouri, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Shivaji Mohalla, Mihouna, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Directorate Agriculture Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Office Of Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Director, Directorate, Farmer Welfare And Agriculture Development, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For State/respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, G.A. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Order 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.4/Director, Directorate, Farmer Welfare & Agriculture Development Bhopal (M.P.), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as surveyor in the Department of Agriculture in the year 1982 and was posted at Sarangarh, District Raigarh (M.P. / now C.G.). Subsequently, on 06.02.1985, the Joint Director Bilaspur issued an order of suspension of the petitioner on the ground that he had produced forged certificate of passing Higher Secondary School Examination in the year 1981 showing his date of birth as 05.07.1960 instead of 02.05.1949, but since no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner within 45 days of the suspension, the Joint Director vide order dated 01.04.1985 revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner. On 01.04.1985 itself, the Joint Director issued another order again, suspending the petitioner and forwarded the charge sheet, i.e., article of charge dated 28.03.1985, statement of imputations of misconduct and list of documents in support of the charge and the same were received by the petitioner on 04.04.1985. The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement within 15 days thereof, which was filed by the petitioner, deny charges levelled against him. On 26.06.1985, the Joint Director issued an order appointing himself 3
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in WPS No.4785/2008, matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal as per the provisions of Rule 27 of the CCA Rules, but appellate authority without considering the appeal in accordance with aforesaid rule vide impugned order Annexure- P/1 only referring the contents of enquiry report has mechanically dismissed the appeal without application of mind. Hence, he prays that petition may be allowed and relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him. 6. State has filed its reply stating inter alia, that after service of charge sheet and enclosures, petitioner had filed his reply and participated in the departmental enquiry proceeding. Allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he obtained the forged certificates of passing Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1981 showing his date of birth as 05.07.1960, whereas in certificate of passing of Examination in the year 1970-71, his date of birth is mentioned as 02.05.1949. Learned counsel for the State referring to its reply would submit that in departmental enquiry, on the basis of documentary evidence collected in respect of the charges, 7 particularly documents received from the Project Officer, Denada Health Project, District Bhind (M.P.), it was stated that as per the Higher Secondary marks sheet of the petitioner, he passed the said Examination in the year 1971 and as per that marks sheet his date of birth was 02.05.1949. Board of Secondary Education Bhopal (M.P.) had also informed vide communication dated 07.01.1985 that a person Babulal Pachouri, S/o Dwarika Prasad Pachouri has participated in the Higher Secondary Examination for the first time in the year 1971 and for the second time in the year 1981 and as per their record, date of birth of Babulal Pachouri, S/o Dwarika Prasad Pachouri was mentioned as 02.05.1949 and 05.07.1960, respectively. He further submitted that on the basis of documentary evidence, Enquiry Officer held guilty to the petitioner forging marks sheets of passing of Higher Secondary Examination mentioning wrong date of birth. Thus, petitioner has obtained government employment on the basis of forged document, which has been held proved by the documentary evidence, therefore, he prayed that instant petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with original record of departmental enquiry proceeding submitted by the government advocate, with utmost circumspection. 8. In instant departmental enquiry proceeding, charge levelled against the petitioner is that in the year 1981-82, he obtained service to the post of Surveyor (Trainee) in the Agriculture Department of State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) and got posted in the office of Assistant Soil Conservation officer, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, M.P. (now C.G.) on the basis of forged mark-sheet of Higher Secondary of the year 1981, in which 8 his date of birth was mentioned as “05.7.1960” whereas he has already obtained mark-sheet passing Higher Secondary Examination Certificate in the year 1971, in which, his date of birth was mentioned as “02.5.1949” and thereby he deceived the officials of State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh). 9. During course of submission, learned counsel appearing for the State produced original record of enquiry proceedings. After perusal of original record, when specific question was posed by the Court to the State counsel, as to whether in departmental enquiry proceeding, any departmental witnesses were examined and whether issuing authority of those documents i.e. communication of Project Officer, Denada Health Protection Project, District Bhind (M.P.), and Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, on the basis of which, Enquiry Officer has held guilty to the petitioner, have been examined, learned State counsel submitted that neither aforesaid documents have been proved by examining issuing authorities nor those documents have been proved on the basis of original records. 10. As per Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966, while proving charge of misconduct levelled against the delinquent employee, if the same has been denied by him, the Department will have to prove the charge / misconduct by adducing / presenting evidence. Relevant provisions of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966 are as under :- “Rule 14. (14) – Appearance of prosecution evidence and witnesses 14. (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be 9 produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Officer and may be cross- examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. “Rule 14. (15) – Production of additional documents and witnesses. 14.(15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer, to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the enquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before 10 they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. Note. - New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. “Rule 14. (16) – Closure of prosecution case and submission of statement of defence. 14.(16) When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record, in their case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. “Rule 14. (17) – Production of defence evidence and witnesses 14 (17) The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority 11 according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.” 11. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that, to prove the charge / misconduct, the evidence ought to have adduced by the Department / Disciplinary Authority and, thereafter delinquent employee shall produce his witness in his defence. 12. Learned Division Bench of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. C.P. Singh2, taking into consideration the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of D.K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India 3 and Food Corporation of India v. A. Prahalada Rao4, summarised the legal position for imposing penalty to be adopted in a departmental enquiry proceedings in paragraph 16, which reads thus :- "16. The position as can be gathered from the Rules and the aforesaid decisions can be summarised thus: (i) In a summary inquiry, a show cause notice is issued informing the employee about the proposal to take disciplinary action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which such action is proposed to be taken. The employee is given an opportunity of making a representation against the proposal. The Disciplinary Authority considers the records and the representation and records of findings on each of the imputations of misconduct. (ii) In a regular inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority draws up the articles of charge and it is served on 2 3 4 2004 (II) MPJR 252 (2001) 9 SCC 180 (2001) 1 SCC 165 12 the employee with a statement of imputation of misconduct, list of witnesses and list of documents relied on by the Department. The Disciplinary Authority calls upon the employee to submit his defence in writing. On considering the defence; the Disciplinary Authority considers the same and decides whether the inquiry should be proceeded with, or the charges are to be dropped. If he decides to proceed with the enquiry, normally an Inquiring Authority is appointed unless he decides to hold the inquiry himself. A Presenting Officer is appointed to present the case. The employee is permitted to take the assistance of a co-employee or others as provided in the rules. An inquiry is held where the evidence is recorded in the presence of the employee. The employee is permitted to inspect the documents relied upon by the employer. The employee is also permitted to call for other documents in the possession of the Management which are in his favour. The delinquent employee is given an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the management by cross- examining the management witnesses and by producing his evidence both documentary and oral. Arguments-written and/or oral, are received/heard. The delinquent employee is given full opportunity to put forth his case. Thereafter the Inquiring Authority submits his report. The copy of the report is furnished to the employee and his representation is received. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority considers all the material and passes appropriate orders. The detailed procedure for such inquiries is contained in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 corresponding to sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services 13 (CCA) Rules, 1965 and M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx xxx (vi) xxx xxx xxx 13. Thus, as per sub-Clause 14, 15, 16 & 17 of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966 and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court with regard to Departmental Enquiry proceedings, if delinquent employee denied the charges levelled against him, then the Department ought to have proved the charges / misconduct by adducing oral / documentary evidence by affording due opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. But, in instant case, perusal of enquiry report and original record of enquiry proceedings shows that it was fixed for hearing four times i.e. on 22.07.1985, 01.08.1985, 26.08.1985 and 01.10.1985. It is also evident from the enquiry report that, before examining the departmental witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross- examination of petitioner/delinquent employee was recorded and thereafter, presenting officer filed an application to the effect that Department will examine two witnesses namely Mahesh Chandra Sharma, who made complaint against the petitioner and Project Officer, Denada Health Protection Project, District Bhind (M.P.). Notices were also sent to those departmental witnesses, but they did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, as such, they could not have been examined by the Department. Thereafter, enquiry report was prepared by the Enquiry Officer merely on the basis of two documents i.e. communication dated 14 03.12.1984 sent by Project Officer, Denada Health Protection Project, District Bhind (M.P.), wherein it was stated that as per mark-sheet of the year 1971 about passing Higher Secondary Examination, his date of birth was “02.05.1949” and second document is a communication (Xerox copy) dated 07.01.1985 sent by Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, whereby it was informed that a person namely Babulal Pachouri, S/o. Shri Dwarika Prasad Pachouri entered in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971 as private student and as per record, his date of birth was “02.05.1949” and in the year 1981, a person namely Babulal Pachouri, S/o. Shri Dwarika Prasad Pachouri entered into Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1981 from Ashok Higher Secondary School, Badokhadi, District Bhind (M.P.) and as per record, his date of birth was “05.07.1960”. But, these two documents have not been proved by the Department neither by examining its issuing authority nor by calling original record pertaining to aforesaid two documents. 14. In defence submitted by the petitioner in writing before disciplinary authority / Enquiry Officer, which is part of original record of enquiry proceeding, he has categorically stated that he has participated only at once in the year 1981 in the examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate and he has never appeared in aforesaid examination in the year 1969-70. Department has also not proved mark-sheet of petitioner of the year 1971 passing Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1969-70. Thus, it is clear that the Department has held proved charge / misconduct levelled against the petitioner, only on the basis of aforesaid two communications. 15 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Moni Shankar v. Union of India 5 has held in paragraph 17 as under :- “17. ………………….. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.” 16. Further in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 6 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to 5 6 2008 (3) SCC 484 (2006) 4 SCC 713 16 interfere in a case where the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in the event the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings are questioned before it should keep in mind the following: (1) the enquiry officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. [See State of Assam & Anr. V. Mahendra Kumar Das &
Arguments
as an Enquiry Officer and one Mr. C.J. Choithani as Presenting Officer and the notice was issued to the petitioner to attend the departmental enquiry, which was fixed for five times and the same was attended by the petitioner. On 15.01.1987, the Joint Director revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner in service vide order dated 15.01.1987. Subsequently, in enquiry report, the petitioner was held guilty and vide order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner was removed from his service. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner was alleged to have committed murder of Mahesh and Jasram, after granting bail in that case, he tried to report his duty in the department in the year 1992, but he was not allowed to join as he was already removed from service. On 12.10.1992, the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 15.09.1989 before the Director of Agriculture Bhopal, but vide order dated 26.07.1994 (Annexure P-12), the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thereafter the petitioner filed OA No.2189/1995 before the State Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur and after bifurcation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the said application was transferred before this Court and re- registered as WPS No.4785/2008. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-13) and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his appeal / representation before the appellate authority and vide order dated 05.11.2018, the appeal of the petitioner was again dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.66/2019 before this Court on the ground that the petitioner’s appeal has again been dismissed by non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Thereafter, appeal was again heard by respondent No.4 and again dismissed vide impugned order dated 4 15.03.2019, which was served to the petitioner vide covering memo (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.4 as well as the order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure- P/10) passed by the respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had filed two marks sheets of Higher Secondary (Class 11th ) ‘1st mark sheet’ of Higher Secondary Examination of the year 1969-70, in which, his date of birth is mentioned as 02.05.1949. Subsequently, the petitioner again obtained Transfer Certificate of Class-10th and participated in Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1980-81 and obtained ‘2nd mark sheet’ of Higher Secondary Examination of the year 1981, in which, his date of birth is shown as 05.07.1960, but Enquiry Report does not show that said two certificates of passing Higher Secondary by the petitioner have been proved, rather only on the basis of memo dated 03.12.1984 received from Project Officer, Denada Health Protection Project District Bhind (M.P.), date of birth of petitioner has been held to be as 02.05.1949, but no mark sheet of petitioner of passing of Higher Secondary in the year 1969-70 has been proved. He further submits that petitioner had participated only once in the Examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate in the year 1981 and in that mark sheet his date of birth is mentioned as 05.07.1960. As per the enquiry report, information was also obtained from the Board of Secondary Education Bhopal, who had informed that one Babulal Pachouri, S/o Dwarika Prasad Pachouri had participated as private student in the Higher Secondary School Examination in the year 1971 and as per the record, date of birth of Babulal Pachouri was mentioned as 02.05.1949. Further, in 5 the year 1981, Babulal Pachouri, S/o Dwarika Prasad Pachouri was participated as regular student in the Examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate and as per record his date of birth was 05.07.1960. He would further submitted that the Enquiry Report itself shows that Enquiry Officer and even Board of Secondary Education Bhopal (M.P.) could not have ascertained the fact that students appeared in the year 1971 & 1981 in the Higher Secondary Examinations are one and the same. It is further submitted that in departmental enquiry, petitioner has categorically stated in his reply, that he had participated in Examination of 11th Class only at once in the year 1981. He has further clearly stated that when he was working in Denada Project of Health Department, at that time he had not filed any educational certificate, as such, charge levelled against him is false, despite that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Enquiry Officer has held charge proved merely on the basis of two vague documents, that too, the same have not been proved by calling its issuing authorities or by filing and proving said two marks sheets of Higher Secondary of the petitioner. Thus, petitioner has been held guilty without any lawful evidence, which cannot be relied upon and have been terminated illegally, therefore, it is bad in law. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank & Others 1 , in support of his submission. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short ‘CCA Rules’) has not been followed at all, as no departmental witnesses have been examined to prove the charges and documents relied upon have not been 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 6 proved in accordance with law. Because of non-examining of any departmental witness, particularly in respect of those documents, which have been relied upon, petitioner has been deprived of cross-examination of those witnesses of documents relied by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, principle of natural justice has not been followed. He further submitted that paragraph 7 of the enquiry report shows that criminal case under Section 420 of IPC was lodged against the petitioner at police station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), but in that case closure report was filed by the police finding therein that case is not fit to be charge sheeted. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide order dated 20.08.2018