Naveen Bazar, Phool Chowk, Raipur, Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District Durg v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S

: Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G. A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput 19 . 07 .2024 Order on Board The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent for its kind perusal. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased 2 to issue a writ of certiorari setting-aside the order dated 12/11/2021 (Annexure-P/1) and consequently the order dated 08/07/2011 (Annexure-P/7). Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Guard in Sub-Jail, Dongargarh in the year 2008. On 23/12/2009 after completion of the PT Parade, around 07:30 AM, it was found in the departmental enquiry that the petitioner has supplied two packets of Biri, four packets of Tobacco and one lighter to one Tirith Ram (prisoner in Jail) S/o of Bhagat Ram, who used to provide tea to the Guards, in Central Jail, Raipur. On the basis of above departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from the services vide order dated 08/07/2011. After which the petitioner preferred an appeal and same was dismissed vide order dated 14/10/2011 (Annexure-P/8) by the respondent No. 2. Against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 1227/2012, which was partly allowed by this Court vide its order dated 07/09/2021 and order dated 14/10/2011 passed by respondent No. 2 was set-aside and the matter was restored to file of appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 2 for hearing and disposal in accordance with law within the period of three months. The respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 12/11/2021 again dismissed the appeal. This is how this writ petition has been filed before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner has not been done in accordance with law, no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded, no documents were served upon the petitioner to defend his case and the case against 3 the petitioner could not be proved in accordance with law, therefore, the imposition of punishment on the petitioner for dismissal of service can not sustain. Even otherwise, he submits that after looking to the charge, the punishment imposed of dismissal is disproportionate. He submits that this factor has not been considered by the appellate authority also and mechanically maintaining the order of punishment, the appellate authority has passed the impugned order. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order Annexure P/1 and departmental enquiry may be quashed, petitioner may be reinstated in the service. Ultimately he submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 and the punishment of dismissal may be altered with a minor punishment which may be imposed. He further submits that in the earlier charges which were leveled against the petitioner, he was acquitted and previous charges cannot be a ground for dismissal of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the imposition of punishment of dismissal on the ground that the Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority against the finding of departmental enquiry. She further submits that due opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself in the departmental enquiry and the petitioner earlier charged for 37 occasions and punishment was imposed. Because his conduct was not as good as it requires to be a Guard in the Jail. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner was charged that he has given certain Tobacco, Biri and lighter to one of the inmates of the Jail. Which is found to be in violation of Rule 236 (G), 280(B) and 570(ii) (iv) of Jail Manual. The second charge 4 was that by committing the said act, he has violated the Rule 281 of Jail Manual which is also in violation of Prisoners Act, 1894 of Section 42 which is serious offence and which also in violation of Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. From the records appended with the writ petition it appears that 36 instances have been shown showing the conduct of the petitioner including some punishments which was earlier imposed by the concerned authority and, therefore, looking to the conduct, the petition was dismissed. Against which an appeal was also preferred and the appellate order also appears to have been passed after considering the submissions made by the petitioner herein and after detailed examination of the material available before it, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.

8. Law in this regard is no longer res integra in case of General Manager (Appellate Authority), SBI V/s Ajai Kumar Shrivatava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 in paragraph 24, 27 and 28 have been held as under:- “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not 5 applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

28. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”

9. The finding recorded by appellate authority does not appear to be a perverse finding. Taking into consideration, the material placed before this Court and in light of judgment of Ajai Kumar Shrivastava (supra), I do not find any merit in this case. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Sd/- $.Bhilwar/Pawan