Kondagaon, (C.G.) v. 1 - Union Of India Through Director General Of Police, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10854 of 2019 1 - Yaadram Yadav S/o Bholaram Yadav, Aged About 56 Years Constable G.D. No. 810480147, Crpf Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Director General Of Police, Lodhi Road, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Inspector General Of Police, Through Central Reserve Police Force, Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Crpf, Agartala (Tripura)., Tripura 3 - Commandant, 188 Battalian CRPF Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General of India. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That, charge-sheet dated 04/10/2019 issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 3 may kindly be set- aside /quashed. 10.2 That, the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to appoint the defence assistant of his own choice as per rules giving an overriding effect to the circular orders, if any. 10.3 The respondents may be directed to provide him all the relevant documents on the basis of which the departmental inquiry is if allowed to be proceeded. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing this petition as far as it relates to relief clause No. 10.2 & 10.3 of the instant petition and would confine his argument to relief clause No. 10.1 thereof only. He further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in CRPF, Rajnandgaon in the rank of Constable / General Duty on 05.08.1981. He was issued charge-sheet on 04.10.2019 alleging therein that there was manipulation in the Transfer Certificate filed by the petitioner while his joining, wherein his date of Birth has been manipulated to make 05.01.1963 whereas it is 05.01.1964 in order to gain employment showing him to be adult. He further submits that after issuance of charge-sheet, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2023, thus, said charge-sheet was issued after more than 38 years, whereas, said document was filed by the petitioner while his joining, therefore, if any manipulation would be there, then appropriate action ought to have been taken at that time. After more than 38 years, such action against the petitioner, on the basis of said allegations, would cause prejudice not only to the petitioner but also to the work performed by him, hence, relief sought for by the petitioner may be allowed. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/Union of India while relying on its reply would submit that the petitioner had manipulated his date of birth in Transfer Certificate in order to secure employment in the year 1981, because as per his actual date of birth, he was a minor at that time, but he committed fraud by manipulating his date of birth in the transfer certificate mentioning 05.01.1963 in place of 05.01.1964, which amounts to misconduct under the applicable rules, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner has been got verified from Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mothuka, (Kisangarh – Vas), District Alwar, Rajasthan, who has informed vide Annexure R-8 dated 19.9.2019 that actual date of birth of the petitioner is 05.01.1964 . 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the transfer certificate (Annexure R-6) was submitted by the petitioner while his joining in service i.e. on 05.08.1981, if there was any manipulation in it, then the respondent authorities ought to have taken action at that time or as early as possible, but impugned charge- sheet was issued on the basis of said allegations on 04.10.2019 i.e. after about more than 38 years from the date of joining of petitioner in service. Subsequently, after filing instant petition, the petitioner has been retired on 31.01.2023. Initiation of departmental enquiry, after such a long period of 38 years, cannot be held to be justified particularly for the fact, which was already present on record 38 years prior. 6. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board 1 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under:- 1 (2005) 6 SCC 636 4 “ 7. The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as
Decision
made in the writ petition. 11 Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The 5 appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefit shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.” 7. In the case of M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others 2 disciplinary proceeding was initiated against an employee after six years, therefore, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that initiation of such disciplinary proceeding and continuation of the same for a period of seven years prejudiced the delinquent employee. 8. In a fact situation of the instant case, as has been observed herein- above and the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforecited cases, in opinion of this court, initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner after more than 38 years from his joining cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 4.10.2019 issued by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner is liable to be and is hereby set aside /quashed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.14 14:58:36 +0530 2 (2006) 5 SCC 88