Chattisgarh High Court

Y. Shrinivas Murthy vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 27 June, 2024

    Neutral Citation
    2024:CGHC:22649



                                    1

                                                                   NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WPS No. 4337 of 2014
       Y. Shrinivas Murthy, S/o Y.N. Murthy, aged about 42 Years, R/o
       Nandini Road, Near Blue Star Hotel, Post Khursipar, Bhilai,
       Distt. Durg, (C.G.)                             ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Home (Police
      Department), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
      Distt. Raipur, (C.G.)
   2. Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Police
      Head Quarters, Raipur, (C.G.)
   3. Assistant Director General, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Police
      Head Quarters, Raipur, (C.G.)
   4. Commandant 1st Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Bhilai,
      District - Durg, (C.G.)
                                                       ---- Respondents

_____________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner - Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For the State - Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional A.G. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 27/06/2024 Heard.

1. The present petition is against the order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure

P/1), order dated 26.09.2013 (Annexure P/2), order dated 11.07.2013

(Annexure P/3), order dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure P/4), order dated

22.06.2011 (Annexure P/5), order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P/6)

and order dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure P/7) whereby the petitioner

have been terminated from the post of Section Commander, Special

Task Force, Chhattisgarh Armed Force.

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22649

2. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 05.07.2009 on the

allegation that the petitioner had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs on

the pretext of providing employment to the post of Constable in a

recruitment process which was of the year 2006. Since the

misconduct came to fore, on allegation of misconduct, a departmental

enquiry was proposed and conducted. After departmental enquiry, it

was found that he is guilty of the charges and the complaint though

was with respect to taking of money to provide employment, but,

according to the petitioner, it was out of a monetary transaction of

loan. During the enquiry, the witnesses were examined, the petitioner

too also were provided with all opportunity of hearing and to adduce

evidence in his favour.

3. The Enquiry Officer after evaluating the evidence came to a finding

that the allegation levelled against the petitioner stands proved. On

the basis of that, the disciplinary authority imposed the major

punishment after providing him opportunity to explain. The said

major penalty of dismissal of service was further subject of challenge

in a departmental appeal. The second appellate authority in the

department appeal too affirmed the order. The appeal was further

preferred to the State Government but the Government rejected the

appeal on the ground that no such provision exist.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that each monetary

transaction was not pertaining to providing the employment but it

was otherwise monetary transaction in between the family members

of the petitioner and the complainant. Therefore, the said transaction

of money cannot be branded as an illegal bribe or misconduct.

Consequently, both the disciplinary authority and the appellate Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22649

authority failed in their duty to appreciate the facts and evidence.

Therefore, the reinstatement is called for by setting aside the orders

of disciplinary authorities.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that in a

departmental enquiry due opportunity was granted to the petitioner

and the rules of natural justice were followed. During the

examination of the petitioner and the witness, this fact was proved

beyond reasonable doubt that the money was taken to provide

employment and the petitioner was working in the said department.

Therefore, the said misconduct cannot be encouraged. Consequently,

no other way out left his services were terminated. He would further

submit that even otherwise this court would not exercise the appellate

jurisdiction over the finding recorded by the enquiry officer.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is a settled proposition of law that the writ court cannot sit as

court of appeal over the departmental proceeding and scope of

interference is extremely limited when judicial review of

departmental disciplinary proceeding is called for. The Supreme

Court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. P.

Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 has laid down the

following proposition. Para 12 of the judgment is reproduced

hereunder:-

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22649

finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

                     (g) the disciplinary authority         had
                     erroneously failed to admit            the
                     admissible and material evidence;
                     (h) the disciplinary authority had
                     erroneously   admitted     inadmissible

evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence."

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22649

8. Perusal of the record would show that due opportunity was given and

rules of natural justice were duly followed. It would be apt to

reproduce certain part of the cross-examination which, prima facie,

reflect that during the examination, the petitioner admitted to have

received the money to provide employment. The relevant question

and answer are reproduced hereunder:-

iz0 07 vki lR;izdk'k vkRet Lo- Jh pUnzek flag dks vkj{kd ds in ij HkrhZ djkus ds fy, Lo;a vkWQj fn;s Fksa fd] muds }kjk vkils HkrhZ djkus gsrq igy fd;k x;k Fkk \ m0 muds }kjk gh igy fd;k x;k FkkA iz0 08 vkidks lR;izdk'k vkRet Lo- Jh pUnzek flag }kjk vkj{kd in ij HkrhZ djkus gsrq fdruk :i;k fdl fnukad dks dgk¡ fn;k x;k Fkk \ m0 lkbZ fouk;d LVwfM;ks esa vkj{kd in ij HkrhZ djkus gsrq jde :- 200000@& ¼frfFk ;kn ugha½ fn;k x;k FkkA iz0 09 vki vHkh rd fdruk iSlk mlesa ls lR;izdk'k vkRet Lo- Jh pUnzek flag dks okil dj pqds gS rFkk fdruk iSlk vHkh okil djus dks 'ks"k gS \ m0 esjs }kjk jde :- 115000@& vkt fnukad rd okil dj pqdk gw¡A :- 85000@& nsuk 'ks"k gSA iz0 17 vkids }kjk HkrhZ djkus ds uke ij fdlh ls iSlk ysuk ,oa HkrhZ u gksus ds ckn okil u djuk] D;k lafnX/k vkpj.k dk ifjpk;d ugh gS \ m0 gk¡ gSA iz0 18 D;k vkidks ,slk vkHkkl ugh gksrk gS fd vkids bl vkpj.k ls bl vuq'kkflr foHkkx ,oa vkids inh;