Chattisgarh High Court
U.S. Agrawal vs Sushri Rita Shandilya on 22 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 272 of 2022
U.S. Agrawal S/o Late Shri R. C. Agrawal Aged About 59 Years Presently
Posted At Government I.T.I, Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Sushri Rita Shandilya Secretary, Department Of Skill Development,
Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Shri Dhananjay Dewangan (Then Secretary) C/o. Secretary, Department
Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Shri Sunil Vijayvargiya Under Secretary, Department Of Skill Development,
Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Shri Motiram Khunte Under Secretary, Department Of Skill Development,
Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
22/02/2022
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging the non
compliance of the order dated 22.03.2021 passed in WPS
1471/2021.
2. For ready reference, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to
the operative paragraph of the judgment against which the non
compliance is said to have been made :-
"Considering the sensitivity of the matter and the
complaint lodged for and the fact that the authorities
concerned have already got the matter inquired at the first
instance and a report also was submitted to the District
Collector as early as on 11.11.2019 and any remedial
steps if initiated by the respondents, the same cannot be
subjected to judicial review at this stage, where it is only a
charge-sheet, which stands issued and where the
petitioner also has the liberty to file a detailed response to
the charge-sheet and which shall be duly considered by
the Disciplinary Authority before proceedings further with
the respondents. In all probabilities, if the petitioner is able
to provide cogent and sufficient substantial reply to the
charge-sheet,the Disciplinary Authority can also drop the
disciplinary proceedings at that stage also. It would be
premature for the High Court to convert itself as a fact
finding agency or a body to conduct a roving inquiry so far
as the veracity of the complaint lodged against the
petitioner is concerned. Even otherwise it is a settled
position of law that the High Courts in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction should be slow in entertaining petitions at
show cause notice stage as also at the charge-sheet stage,
where a decision is yet to be taken by the authorities
concerned. Only issuance of the charge-sheet or placing of
the petitioner under suspension would not by itself mean
that the petitioner stands punished by the authorities for
the alleged misconduct. In view of the same, this Court is
reluctant to entertain the writ petition at this juncture and
the writ petition therefore, at this juncture stands rejected.
However, it is expected that in the event if the petitioner
submits a detailed reply to the charge-sheet, the
Disciplinary Authority shall duly appreciate the contentions
and objections that the petitioner shall raise in the reply
and only after due consideration of the same should the
Disciplinary Authority proceed further with the matter in
accordance with the service Rules governing the field."
3. The petitioner now has alleged that the non compliance is to the
extent that respondents on one hand issued show cause notices to
the petitioner calling upon his explanation and simultaneously on the
same day they have also initiated a disciplinary proceeding and have
also gone to the extent of appointment of the Presenting Officer and
Enquiry Officer. Thereby according to the petitioner respondents
seems to have a predetermined approach which therefore has to be
taken as if they have committed contempt of the order of this Court to
the extent of not adhering to the directions given by this Court so far
as disciplinary Authorities to appreciate the contentions and
objections that petitioner raises in his reply to the charge-sheet.
4. Now in the present factual matrix of the case, the pleadings reflect
that respondents had even before the disposal of the writ petition had
initiated disciplinary proceedings including the issuance of charge
sheet and appointment of the Presenting Officer and appointment of
the Enquiry Officer. The fact that such development have transpired
firstly before the disposal of the writ petition, secondly in the
backdrop where this Court was outrightly reluctant to entertain the
writ petition itself at the charge sheet and show cause stage. Hence
even if respondents for arguments sake have deviated from the
observations that have been made by this Court, it would not fall
within the ambit of contempt. Any further action that is initiated and
finally passed by the respondent Authorities and which is detrimental
to the interest of the petitioner that would be a fresh cause of action
altogether and which the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge in
an appropriate fresh proceedings. Merely because the respondents
have proceeded further with the disciplinary proceedings and that
which was instituted and initiated even before disposal of the
aforementioned writ petition preferred by the petitioner i.e. WPS
1471/2021 decided on 05.03.2021 the contempt as such is not made
out. The contempt petition accordingly at this juncture stands
rejected, reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate
remedies available to him by way of a separate proceeding.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
