Chakradhar Singh vs S. E. C. L
2023 Latest Caselaw 826 Chatt

                                                                          AFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          Writ Appeal No.185 of 2022

                    Judgment Reserved on :     13.12.2022
                     Judgment Delivered on :     9.2.2023

      Chakrdhar Singh, S/o Pooran Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Ward
      No.4, Dipka Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Appellant
                                   versus

   1. S.E.C.L. through Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

   2. General Manager, S.E.C.L., Dipka Area, Tahsil Katghora, District
      Korba, Chhattisgarh

   3. Deputy General Manager (Mining)/Mine Manager, S.E.C.L., Dipka
      Vistar Pariyojna, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                              --- Respondents


For Appellant        :     Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate
For Respondents      :     Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by
                           Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate


                Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
                   Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge

                               C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

1. The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner being

aggrieved by the order dated 22.3.2022 passed by a learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1898 of 2022, whereby

the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition,

directed the respondents to proceed with the departmental inquiry

pending against the petitioner/appellant.

2. As per the petitioner/appellant, the respondents/authorities had

acquired some land for Kusmunda Project. According to the rules

and regulations formulated by the respondents/authorities for giving

employment to the displaced land owners, the owners of the land

could also nominate other persons on their behalf for obtaining

employment pursuant to acquisition of their land. One Ashok

Kumar Singh, whose land was acquired, nominated the appellant's

name for providing him employment under the Kusmunda Project.

He also gave an affidavit/consent letter to the respondents in this

regard. After verifying the fact from the revenue officers, the

appellant was appointed as a Majdoor Category-I in Gevra Project

vide order dated 9.2.1990. Later on, a complaint was made on

14.5.2016 by one Kusum Soni against the appellant before

respondent No.2 alleging therein that the appellant had obtained

employment on the basis of forged documents. On the basis of the

said complaint, a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on

16.3.2017. The appellant gave his reply to the charge-sheet on

20.3.2017 denying the allegations made against him. On

27.7.2021, Anju Singh, widow of Ashok Kumar Singh also gave an

affidavit in support of the appellant. A separate inquiry was

conducted by the Tahsildar under Section 165(6) of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the LR Code')

on the complaint of Kusum Soni. The Tahsildar submitted his

report on 27.11.2020. The respondents/authorities, being

dissatisfied with the reply of the appellant, issued order dated

8.3.2022, whereby an inquiry officer was appointed. The above

order dated 8.3.2022 and the charge-sheet earlier issued to the

appellant was challenged before the learned Single Judge on the

ground that at the time of issuance of charge-sheet, no list of

documents, list of witnesses and articles of charges were provided

to the appellant and, therefore, there was non-compliance of the

principles of natural justice. It was further contended that after filing

of the reply to the charge-sheet, the respondents/authorities kept

the further proceedings of the departmental inquiry in abeyance for

5 years and suddenly, just 2 months before superannuation of the

appellant, the respondents/authorities, vide order dated 8.3.2022,

again started further proceedings of the departmental inquiry and

appointed the inquiry officer, which is not permissible.

3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the

following observations:

"6. Given the said submission by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that since it is only at the disciplinary stage, it would not be proper and justified for this court to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents at this juncture. However, the respondents are directed to ensure that they should proceed further the departmental enquiry only in due compliance of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner should also be made available with all relevant records and list of witnesses which the respondents would be relying upon in the course of departmental enquiry before proceeding further with the departmental enquiry. It is further directed that considering the fact that the petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation in April, 2022, the respondents are directed to ensure that the departmental enquiry is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably before the petitioner crosses the age of

superannuation. The petitioner, in turn, is also directed to render all necessary co-operation for the early conclusion of the departmental enquiry."

4. Thus, the instant writ appeal has been preferred by the

petitioner/appellant.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/appellant that as at the time of issuance of charge-sheet,

the appellant was not provided the list of documents, list of

witnesses and articles of charges, the appellant was not aware of

the allegations levelled against him. The charge-sheet was issued

only on the basis of a complaint made by Kusum Soni. After

submission of the appellant's reply, the respondents/authorities did

not proceed further and the proceedings were kept in abeyance for

5 years. Despite that, the learned Single Judge passed the

impugned order. By holding that the documents will be supplied at

the time of inquiry, the learned Single Judge committed grave error

in law and covered the lacuna on the part of the

respondents/authorities. It was further argued that at the time of

issuance of charge-sheet, no single evidence was available to

prove the charges levelled against the appellant and, therefore

also, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not

sustainable.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the

arguments raised on behalf of the appellant. It was submitted by

the learned senior counsel that on the basis of the material placed

on record, the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ

petition. There is no manifest error or illegality in the impugned

order. Thus, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties

and perused the entire material available on the records of the writ

petition and the writ appeal.

8. Undisputedly, the petitioner/appellant was appointed in the year

1990. It is also not in dispute that one Kusum Soni made a

complaint against the appellant on 14.5.2016. It is also not in

dispute that on the basis of the said complaint, a charge-sheet was

issued to the appellant on 16.3.2017 and reply to the said charge-

sheet was filed by the appellant on 20.3.2017. Thereafter, no

further proceeding was conducted in the departmental inquiry and

after passing of 5 years, vide order dated 8.3.2022, an inquiry

officer is appointed and the departmental inquiry is proceeded

further. It is also admitted by the respondents that at the time of

issuance of charge-sheet, no list of documents, list of witnesses

and articles of charges were supplied to the appellant. The

respondents also failed to submit any document to show that at the

time of issuance of charge-sheet, i.e., in the year 2017, such type

of documents were prepared and annexed with the charge-sheet.

9. From perusal of the record of the writ petition, we have seen that

the writ petition was filed on 11.3.2022 and the matter was for the

first time listed before the learned Single Judge on 22.3.2022 and

on that very day the learned Single Judge has passed the

impugned order. We have also seen that no return or counter

affidavit is filed by the respondents in the writ petition. In the instant

appeal, return and additional return to the appeal have been filed

by the respondents. In their return and additional return, it is stated

by the respondents that as the complaint dated 14.5.2016 made by

Kusum Soni was separately inquired by the Tahsildar and the

inquiry was pending before the Tahsildar, the

respondents/authorities were awaiting for the report of the said

inquiry and after receiving the inquiry report, the inquiry officer in

the departmental inquiry was appointed vide order dated 8.3.2022.

10. On the basis of the complaint made by Kusum Soni, the Tahsildar

made his inquiry under the provisions of Section 165(6) of the LR

Code. There is nothing on record to show that the matter was

referred by the respondents to the Tahsildar or Sub-Divisional

Officer for an inquiry into the complaint made by Kusum Soni.

Therefore, after issuance of the charge-sheet in the year 2017,

there was no occasion for the respondents/authorities to wait for

the inquiry report from the Tahsildar. From perusal of the charge-

sheet, it also appears that there is no mention of the fact therein

that on the complaint made by Kusum Soni any inquiry was

pending before the Tahsildar.

11. The nomination form (Annexure P2) annexed with the writ petition

shows that the land which was acquired for Kusmunda Project was

bearing Khasra No.284/2 and 584/1. The report dated 27.11.2020

given by the Naib-Tahsildar shows that the inquiry was conducted

with regard to land bearing Khasra No.579/1 admeasuring 0.05

dismil, which was purchased by the petitioner/appellant in the year

1996 in the name of his minor son. As per the report dated

27.11.2020, it was found that the petitioner/appellant, who belongs

to Rajput caste, showing himself to be of Kanwar caste (tribal),

purchased the said land bearing Khasra No.579/1 and thereby the

petitioner/appellant committed fraud. Even if it is so, this has no

relevancy with the land acquired by the respondents/authorities

because the land which was acquired in the year 1988 was bearing

Khasra No.284/2 and 584/1 and the land which was alleged to be

purchased by the petitioner/appellant fraudulently in the year 1996

was bearing Khasra No.579/1. Even if the petitioner/appellant

purchased the said land fraudulently, this land has not been

acquired by the respondents/authorities and the petitioner/appellant

has not got the job in lieu of acquisition of the said land.

12. The nomination form (Annexure P2) as well as the affidavit sworn

by Ashok Kumar Singh and the affidavit sworn by his widow Anju

Singh show that Ashok Kumar Singh was real brother of the

petitioner/appellant. The respondents/authorities have not placed

on record anything to show that for seeking the job the person to be

nominated was to be dependent on the land owner. Therefore, the

name of the petitioner/appellant was proposed by Ashok Kumar

Singh for the job in lieu of acquisition of their land. Looking to the

above, it is clear that at the time of issuance of charge-sheet on

16.3.2017, there was no material available with the authorities to

show that the petitioner/appellant committed any fraud and

obtained the job on the basis of forged documents. Admittedly, list

of documents, list of witnesses and articles of charges were not

supplied to the appellant at the time of issuance of charge-sheet.

13. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that on the

basis of charge-sheet issued in the year 2017, now when 5 years

thereafter have been passed and when the appellant has retired

from service, continuing any further proceeding against the

petitioner/appellant in the aforesaid departmental inquiry would be

miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

22.3.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be and

is hereby set aside and the instant writ appeal is allowed. The

respondents/authorities are directed to close the departmental

proceedings pending against the petitioner/appellant pursuant to

the charge-sheet issued in the year 2017.

                        Sd/-                                       Sd/-

              (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                   Chief Justice                                   Judge

Gopal