Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6733-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 85 of 2025 1 - Aditya Parihar S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Posted as Constable in 8th Battalion CAF, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) R/o Majhgawan, District- Hamirpur, Civil and Revenue District- Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahandai Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police, Home (Police) Department, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director General of Police Battalion CAF, Police Head Quarter, New Raipur (C.G.) 4 – Commandant, 8th Battalion CAF, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aseem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06-02-2025 Heard on I.A. No.1/2024, application for condonation of delay. On due consideration, I.A. No.1/2024 is allowed and the delay Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 in filing the present appeal is condoned. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 14-08-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3088/2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with following prayers:- “a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned Order dated 14.08.2024( Annxure-A/1) passed in W.P.(S) No.3088 of 2022, and; b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside and quash the impugned Orders (Annexure-A/2 & A/3) passed by the respondent no.2 and respondent no.4, respectively, and; c) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be leased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service wit consequential benefits, and/or; d) Any other relief(s), order(s), direction(s) may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case as projected in the petition, are that, the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 22-05-2007 in 8 th Battalion CAF, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) by the respondent authority. The petitioner’s Code is 381. He worked on his post till 24-11- 3 2014. A departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that on 24-11-2024 at 11:25 a.m. he abused and threatened to kill one officer Company Commander Amar Singh on mobile phone and as such his conduct is not according to the rules and his behaviour is not well. Vide order dated 31-08-2015 the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the petitioner has abused and threatened the higher officer on 28-11-2014 on mobile phone. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-08-2015 the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed vide order dated 17-06-2016. Challenging the departmental appellate order dated 17-06-2016 (Annexure - P/1) passed by respondent No.3 and also seeking direction to the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefit, the petitioner filed
Decision
the writ petition. After hearing the parties and the material available in the record of the writ petition the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14-08-2024. Hence, the appellant/petitioner has filed the present appeal with the above-mentioned prayer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner/appellant was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself and he was not supplied complete documents 4 including electronic evidence. The petitioner’s service has been terminated in biased and unfair manner. The finding based on facts of earlier enquiry was erroneous as there was no any physical assault made by the petitioner. The voice recording was required to be sent for expert opinion for verifying its authenticity, but this fact has not been taken into consideration in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order dated 14-04-2024 passed in WPS No.3088 of 2022 and order dated 17-06-2016 passed by departmental appellate authority as also the order of termination from service dated 31- 08-2015 may be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the order dated 14-08-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the petitioner's service was terminated after due departmental enquiry and he was given sufficient opportunity to defend. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed in the writ petition and the documents annexed. 7. After taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 the learned Single Judge has 5 observed in para 6 and 7 of the impugned order dated 14-08- 2024 that:- “6. The law with regard to interference by this Court with regard to finding of departmental enquiry is limited, this Court can not sit as appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence which has been brought in the departmental enquiry. The charge against the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow:- “fnukad 28-11-2014 ds le; 11-25-53 cts eksckbZy ua- 07042776964 ls daiuh dekaMj Jh vejflag ds eksckbZy uacj 08826652155 esa dkWy dj vHknzrk iwoZd ckrphr dj tkfrxr o ekW cgu dh xanh & xanh xkfy;ka nsrs gq, daiuh dekaMj vejflag ,oa muds ifjokj dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj ?kksj vuq’kklughurk]mn.Mrk ,oa xaHkhj vkijkf/kd vkpj.k iznf’kZr djukA” 7. From perusal of departmental enquiry it indicates that the evidence was led and it has also been brought on record that telephonic conversation was made by petitioner with Commander Amar Singh as admitted by the petitioner. There is nothing significant material available on record to suggest that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend the case. The Enquiry Officer after due assessment of evidence brought before it came to a categorical finding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved. The appellate authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has also meticulously examined the submissions and facts and circumstances of the case and ultimately dismissed the appeal. It is to be seen that appellate authority has categorically held that earlier also the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of increment and gave a categorical finding that the petitioner is an undisciplined employee and he is a member 6 of force and it is expected that a member of force should be disciplined and the allegation appears to be serious. So far as the submission with regard to punishment is concerned, the same is not persuaded this Court, looking to the conduct, allegations and finding against the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to allow this petition. It is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 8. No cost.” 8. From perusal of the impugned order dated 14-08-2024 (Annexure A-1), it reflects that there was no substantial material to show that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend his case. The evidence against the petitioner was found proved by the Enquiry Officer and the same was also meticulously examined by the appellate Authority while dismissing his appeal. After considering the material produced before the learned Single Judge the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed and we also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 14-08-2024. 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 passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in 7 the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Aadil