Chattisgarh High Court
Pandit Ravishankar Shukla ... vs Pardeshi Ram Bhoi on 4 May, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 08.02.2021
Judgment delivered on 04/05/2021
Writ Appeal No. 418 of 2020
{Arising out of Order dated 15/09/2020 passed in WPS
No. 6023 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge}
• Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, through its
Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)
------Appellant
VERSUS
• Pardeshi Ram Bhoi, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Sadhu
Ram Bhoi, Presently working as Junior Superintendent, At
Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Amanaka, G.E. Road,
Raipur, R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Campus, Raipur (C.G.)
-------Respondent/Petitioner
For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C.A.V. Order
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 15.09.2020
passed in W.P. (S) No. 6023/2008, whereby learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition, while setting aside the order of
compulsory retirement held that the petitioner/respondent to be
entitled for all consequential benefits including salary from the
date of suspension till his rejoining along with interest @ 9% per
annum.
2. Facts
of the case in nutshell are that respondent/petitioner was
appointed as Book Attendant and was promoted on the post of
Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 31.01.1991. While working as
LDC, he has been assigned the work of Examination
Department of the appellant University, Raipur (henceforth
"University'). He was also given charge of B.B.A. Examination
Department. Respondent/petitioner, while holding the above
charge, has accepted the examination form of B.B.A. of St.
Vincent Palloti College, further issued admit cards with the
seal and stamp of Deputy Registrar of the Examination. The
Action of accepting the examination form of first year students
of St. Vincent Palloti College was viewed seriously, because
the Appellant/University has issued notice on 13.08.2007
mentioning therein that prior permission before accepting
forms of St. Vincent Palloti College. For the aforementioned
reasons, departmental proceedings were initiated against the
respondent/petitioner and charge sheet was issued to him on
03.01.2008. Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after
concluding the enquiry proceedings, has submitted its report to
the competent authority finding charge No. 1 to be proved
whereas other charges i.e. charges No. 2, 3 & 4 to be not
proved. The disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry
report has issued the order (Annexure P-1) on 16.10.2008
imposing penalty of compulsory retirement from services. This
made the respondent / petitioner delinquent employee to
approach High Court by way of filing writ petition being Writ
Petition (S) No. 6023 of 2008 on the grounds mentioned
therein.
3. Appellant/University submitted reply to the writ petition, upon
hearing respective parties and also considering the documents
placed on record, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
vide impugned order dated 15.09.2020. Learned Single Judge
quashed the order dated 16.10.2008 i.e. order of punishment of
compulsory retirement and further held the respondent/petitioner
to be entitled for all consequential benefits including entire
salary from the date of suspension till its rejoining along with
interest @ 9% per annum.
4. Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the
appellant/University submits that the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge is contrary to the evidence available
on record. Enquiry Officer held Charge No. 1 to be proved
wherein the entire act of respondent/petitioner was against the
statute. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has
submitted its report based on the evidence collected after full
fledged enquiry. Disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry
report has passed the order Annexure P-1 of compulsory
retirement. Learned Single Judge has erroneously interdicted
with order of punishment (Annexure P-1). Learned Single Judge
has acted as an Appellate Authority and fell into an error in re-
appreciating the evidence. Appellant/University has paid all
the retiral dues to petitioner after passing of the order of
compulsory retirement (Annexure P-1). Hence, respondent/
petitioner is not entitled for the relief of backwages and, that too,
with interest. He further pointed out that looking to the act
committed by respondent/ petitioner, he has lost his credibility
and, therefore, order passed by appellant/University vide
Annexure P-1 is the appropriate punishment awarded to him.
Learned Single Judge has not considered the entire service
record wherein in past also, one other departmental enquiry was
initiated against him wherein charges levelled against him was
found proved and he was punished with the stoppage of three
increments. Respondent/petitioner is in habit of not following the
orders passed by his superior officers. Order passed in W.P. (C)
No 831/2008 is having no relevancy with the facts of the present
case, but learned Single Judge relying upon the order passed in
aforementioned WPC i.e. W.P. (C) No. 831/2008 has allowed
the writ petition. He further pointed out that learned Single Judge
has erred in awarding interest @ 9% p.a., without considering
the fact that respondent/petitioner has already accepted all the
retiral dues after passing of the order Annexure P-1.
5. Shri Anurag Jha, counsel for the respondent/petitioner would
submit that Enquiry Officer has found only charge No. 1 to be
proved and rest of the charges i.e. Charges No. 2, 3 & 4 to be
not proved and the charge No. 1 is not an allegation but it is only
the bundle of acts of respondent which he did while performing
his duties. He also pointed out that learned Single Judge has
rightly taken note of the order passed by Division Bench in Writ
Petition (C) No. 831 of 2008 wherein learned Judges have held
that statute 28 is not applicable in case of unaided institutions.
Appellant/University without any justifiable cause has passed an
order of compulsory retirement. He was arbitrarily and illegally
ousted from service and not permitted to do the work,
considering this fact, the learned Single Judge has ordered for
all consequential benefits including salary along with interest @
9% per annum. Thus, the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge is perfectly in accordance with law, which
does not call for any interference.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
also perused the record of the writ petition as well as writ appeal
with utmost circumspection.
7. To appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the
rival parties, we have perused the order dated 23.07.2008
passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 831/2008
and connected matter. The question raised by petitioner therein
(St. Vincent Palloti College and others) and while deciding the
question, whether statute-28 of College code will apply to
minority institutions held that students of the academic year
2007-2008 of St. Vincent Palloti College to be considered afresh
in light of the observations made in that order and further that
restriction imposed under the Statute-28 of the College Code to
be unreasonable. Learned Single Judge considering the
aforementioned order dated 23.07.2008 came to the conclusion
that the charge, despite ban by the Appellant//University,
respondent/petitioner accepted the examination form and
examination fee no longer survives and further that charge No. 1
only stated the fact of accepting the examination form and
examination fee on behalf of the Appellant/University and
depositing the same with the competent authority and does not
refer to any conduct making the action of respondent No. 1 to be
illegal. The Enquiry Officer has found other three charges not to
be proved.
8. Charges levelled against the respondent are extracted below for
ready reference :-
"vkjksi Ø- 01%
izkpk;Z] lsaV folsaV iSyksVh egkfo|ky;] dkWik] jk;iqj }kjk
fnukad [email protected]@2007 dks Øe'k% ch-ch-,- izFke lsesLVj] r`rh;
lsesLVj ,oa iape lsesLVj ijh{kk QkeZ rFkk ijh{kk 'kqYd :-
[email protected]& cSadlZ psd uacj 009062] fnukad [email protected]@2007 dks
ysdj ijh{kk lsesLVj esa fnukad [email protected]@2007 dks izLrqr fd;k
x;k FkkA vkids }kjk ijh{kk 'kqYd :- [email protected]& dk Mh-Mh-
tek djus gsrq foRr foHkkx dks laLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds
vk/kkj ij mDr jkf'k fo-fo- ds jlhn Øekad [email protected]] fnukad
26-11-2007 }kjk fo-fo- esa tek dh xbZ FkhA
vkjksi Øekad 02%
fo'ofo|ky; ds mi dqylfpo] ijh{kk }kjk tkjh lwpuk Øekad
[email protected]{[email protected]'[email protected] fnukad [email protected]@2007 ds vuqlkj
vdkneh foHkkx }kjk egkfo|ky;ksa esa l= 2007&08 esa izFke
o"kZ esa izfrcaf/kr egkfo|ky;ksa ds [email protected]{kk vlosnu&i=
Hkstus rFkk Lohdkj djus ds iwoZ iwokZuqefr ysus gsrq funsZf'kr
fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldh lwpuk lacaf/kr ijh{kk ds dk;Zlgk;dksa
dks nh xbZ FkhA ijh{kk vkosnu&i= ijh{kk foHkkx ds vkod
fyfid dks tek u dj egkfo|ky; }kjk lh/ks dk;kZy; lgk;d
ds ikl tek djk;k x;k gSA vkids }kjk midqylfpo]
ijh{kk }kjk tkjh funsZ'k dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS ,oa cxSj
iwokZuqefr ds vkosnu lh/ks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] tks fd
vkids }kjk vius dk;Z esa dh xbZ xaHkhj vfu;ferrk gSA
vkjksi Øekad 03%
ch-ch-,- izFke lsesLVj esa 46 fu;fer Nk=ksa dk ,oa 25 ,sVhdsVh
iwjd izkIr Nk=ksa ds vkosnu&i= vU; ijh{kkvksa ds vkids }kjk
Lohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA jksy uacj vkcaVu o izos'k&i= fcuk
ukekadu ds egkfo|ky; }kjk rS;kj fd, x,] izos'k i= ij
vkids }kjk lh/ks foHkkxh; vf/[email protected]?kh{kd dh tkudkjh ds
fcuk midqylfpo ds gLrk{kj lhy yxkdj izos'k&i= tkjh
fd;k x;k gSA
vkjksi Øekad 04%
vkids }kjk bl izdkj ds d`R; ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vkius
tkucw>dj foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh dks oLrqfLFkfr dh tkudkjh yk,
fcuk egkfo|ky; dks ykHk igqWapkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS ,oa
foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj dh lhy dk nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k
gSA vkids }kjk mijksDrkuqlkj fd, x, d`R; xaHkhj dnkpj.k dh
Js.kh ds varxZr vkrs gSaA vkids bl d`R; ls fo'ofo|ky; dh
izfr"Bk dks vk?kkr igqWapk gSA fo'ofo|ky; dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZ
gSA"
9. Enquiry report is placed on record along with covering memo by
the petitioner in writ petition (at Page No.94). Charges No.2, 3 &
4 are with regard to allegation of acting contrary to the orders
and directions, misuse of seal and signature of the officer of the
department and committing misconduct. The Enquiry Officer
based on the evidence brought on record concluded that
Charges No.2, 3 & 4 to be not proved and Charge No.1 to be
proved.
The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and
on the basis of it, passed order Annexure P-1 i.e. of compulsory
retirement.
Even if the order passed by the Division Bench in WP
No.831/2008 is not to be taken into consideration, as argued by
learned counsel for the appellant, it is to be looked into whether
on the basis of Charge No.1 stated to be proved is a misconduct
and called for punishment when the Enquiry Officer held
Charges No.2 to 4 to be not proved and accepted by the
Disciplinary Authority.
The Charge No.1 from its bare reading only discloses the
acts of the respondent/petitioner while he discharged his duties.
Appellant in Para-1.4 of appeal pleaded that the
respondent/petitioner was posted in the department of
examination, he had charge of BBA exam. Why and how the act
of respondent/petitioner comes within the purview of misconduct
is shown in Charge No.2, which is held by Enquiry Officer not to
be proved. In view of the finding recorded by Enquiry Officer
with regard to Charge No.2, 3 & 4, there cannot be any
punishment for Charge No.1 as it does not describe any
misconduct.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of
learned Single Judge setting aside the order of punishment of
compulsory retirement, granting salary and consequential
benefits.
11. This Court is aware of the scope of interference by the High
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the finding of Enquiry Officer and the
decision of Disciplinary Authority is very limited. The law in this
regard is well settled that the Court can interfere only when the
decision is illegal or perverse. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Allahabad Bank & ors vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari reported in
(2017) 2 SCC 308 has held thus;-
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is
very slow in interfering with the findings of facts
recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of
evidence available on record. But it is equally true
that in a case where the disciplinary authority
records a finding that is unsupported by any
evidence whatsoever or a finding which no
reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ
court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine
the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The
writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary
enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the
competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself
was vitiated on account of violation of principles of
natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the
present case. Non-application of mind by the
enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non-
recording of reasons in support of the conclusion
arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ
courts are justified in interfering with the orders of
punishment. The High Court has, in the case at
hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed
by the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority. The respondent's case that the enquiry
was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable
opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not
been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More
importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear
to have properly appreciated the evidence nor
recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To
add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of
recording its own reasons and independently
appreciating the material on record, simply
reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority.
All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority
and the appellate authority have faltered in the
discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of
justice. The High Court was in that view right in
interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority."
12. Coming back to the case at hand, all the charges i.e. Charge
No.2, 3 & 4, were not found to be proved but for Charge No.1.
Charge No.1 does not mention about the acceptance of
examination form of BBA, 1st Semester, 3rd Semester and 5th
Semester, acceptance of examination fee of Rs.95,400/- and its
deposit with the University to be a misconduct. The Disciplinary
Authority passed only three lines order (Annexure P-1). Even
there is no discussion for imposing punishment based on
enquiry report. In view of the above facts of the case and ruling
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Narayan Tiwari
(supra), we do not find any error in the order of learned Single
Judge interfering with the order of punishment and setting aside
order Annexure P-1.
13. Learned Single Judge has passed an order of all consequential
benefits including entire salary from the date of suspension till
his rejoining in services. Submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant/University is that award of back-wages cannot be
automatic but it is to be considered on the basis of the facts of
each case. Learned Single Judge has also erred in awarding
interest on the salary overlooking the fact that after compulsory
retirement, the appellant has already received the retiral dues
and respondent/petitioner cannot be given double benefit and
also the rate of interest @ 9% per annum. We find it difficult to
accept the submission made by learned counsel for the
Appellant/University that the award of consequential benefits
with back wages is erroneous in the facts and circumstances of
the case. It is an erroneous order of appellant which restricted
the respondent employee from his working. For the foregoing
argument raised, granting back wages and consequential
benefit to be erroneous is not sustainable and is hereby
repelled.
14. So far as it relates to the award of interest @ 9% per annum is
concerned, as per the submission made by learned counsel for
the appellant/University the respondent/petitioner has been paid
all the retiral dues, for which he is entitled for, hence, interest
could not have been awarded. We find some force in the
submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/
University, the respondent/petitioner has not disputed in specific
terms the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant/University with regard to payment of all retiral dues for
which respondent/petitioner was entitled. If this being the
position, we are of the view that petitioner/respondent will be
entitled for interest @ 9% on salary due from the date of passing
of the impugned order dated 15.9.2020 till its realization. We
affirm other reliefs granted to respondent in the impugned order.
15. In view of above, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
order is modified to the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Dubey/-
