Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs Kaladhar Chaubey on 8 November, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010284612023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/251/2024
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI,
PIN-110001
2: THE DY INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF(NEZ) KOLKATA-17.
3: THE COMMANDANT CISF UNIT ONGC JORHAT PIN- 785001.
4: THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT CISF UNIT ONGC JORHAT PIN- 785001
VERSUS
KALADHAR CHAUBEY
S/O SHARADA PRASAD CHAUBEY, R/O- HATHIAR KHURD, P.O- KATIHAR
KALA, P.S- CHOLAPUR, DISTRICT- VARANASI (UP), PIN- 221101.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. A GAYAN,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MS T WAPANGLA,MR. R DEKA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 08.11.2024
Date of Judgment & Order : 08.11.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Ms. Anuradha Gayan, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the
appellants. Also heard Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing on
behalf of the sole respondent.
Page No.# 2/12
2. The present intra-Court appeal preferred by the appellants, herein, is
directed against the judgment & order, dated 02.08.2023, passed by the
learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 89/2023. The appellants have
also presented a challenge to the order, dated 06.06.2023, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(c)4518/2008, against which the Review Petition
being Review Petition No. 89/2023 was so instituted by the sole
respondent, herein.
3. The brief facts requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issues
arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:
3.1. The sole respondent, herein, while working as a Constable in the
Central Industrial Security Force and posted at the Oil and Natural Gas
Commission Ltd. (ONGCL) Unit of the said Force at Jorhat; a Disciplinary
Proceeding came to be instituted against him basing on an allegation that
he along with another constable viz. Santosh Kumar Singh had assaulted
and manhandled a senior Officer of the Unit.
3.2. Basing on the said allegation, two separate proceedings came to be so
instituted against the sole respondent, herein, and said Santosh Kumar
Singh. On conclusion of the said Disciplinary Proceeding, the disciplinary
authority issued the order, dated 30.10.1996, imposing the penalty of
dismissal from service upon the sole respondent. The said Santosh Kumar
Singh was also vide order, dated 28.09.1996, imposed the penalty of
dismissal from service.
Page No.# 3/12
3.3. The sole respondent, herein, assailed the order, dated 30.10.1996,
before the High Court of Allahabad by way of filing a writ petition being WP
No. 10317 of 1999. The said writ petition, was, however, dismissed on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The sole respondent, thereafter,
had instituted WP(c)4518/2008, before this Court.
3.4. The said Santosh Kumar Singh who was also imposed with the penalty
of dismissal from service basing on the same set of allegations as were
levelled against the sole respondent, herein, had also instituted
WP(c)4517/2008, before this Court. The WP(c)4518/2008 so filed by the
sole respondent, herein, was, however, dismissed due to non-prosecution
vide order, dated 28.11.2013. This Court proceeded to consider the issues
arising in the proceeding of WP(c)4517/2008 filed by said Santosh Kumar
Singh, and the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated
10.05.2018, on consideration of the matter, was pleased to set aside the
said order, dated 28.09.1996, directing for reinstatement of said Santosh
Kumar Singh in his service with consequential benefits as provided for in
the judgment & order, dated 10.05.2018. The said judgment & order, dated
10.05.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4517/2008 was
assailed before a Division Bench of this Court by the appellants, herein, by
way of instituting a writ appeal being WA No. 120/2019. The said writ
appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment &
order, dated 29.08.2019, upholding the judgment & order, dated
10.05.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4517/2008.
3.5. The sole respondent, herein, thereafter, took steps for restoration of
WP(c)4518/2008 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.11.2013.
Page No.# 4/12
The writ Court on consideration of the matter, was pleased vide order,
dated 15.11.2021, to restore the said WP(c)4518/2008, to file.
Subsequently, the said WP(c)4518/2008 was taken up for consideration by
the learned Single Judge and vide judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, the
said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge following the
directions passed by this Court in WP(c)4517/2008 vide judgment & order,
dated 10.05.2018. However, in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment & order,
dated 06.06.2023 passed in WP(c)4518/2008; the learned Single Judge by
noticing that the sole respondent, herein, in the meantime, had crossed the
age of superannuation, had not directed for his reinstatement in service
and accordingly, directed for payment of a lump-sum amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- as backwages to the sole respondent, herein.
3.6. The sole respondent, herein, being aggrieved by the directions as
contained in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023,
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4518/2008; proceeded to
institute Review Petition No. 89/2023, and by contending therein, that he,
on the date of passing of the said judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, had
not reached the age of superannuation and accordingly, an error being
apparent on the face of the said judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023; the
same would call for a review.
3.7. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the issues in Review
Petition No. 89/2023, was pleased vide, order, dated 02.08.2023, to review
the directions so passed in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment & order,
dated 06.06.2023, in WP(c)4518/2008, and on review thereof; the said
directions was substituted with directions identical to the one as passed by
Page No.# 5/12
the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 10.05.2018, in
WP(c)4517/2008. The sole respondent, herein, was directed to be
reinstated in service as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force
with immediate effect and the service benefits applicable to him, was
directed to be released by the authorities as per the provisions of law. In
the said order, dated 02.08.2023, it was further provided by the learned
Single Judge that the sole respondent, herein, would be given notional
benefits in service and his seniority would be protected. The payment of a
lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as backwages to the sole respondent,
as ordered vide judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, in WP(c)4518/2008,
was, however, retained.
4. Being aggrieved; the appellants, herein, have instituted the present
proceeding.
5. Ms. Gayan, learned CGC, appearing for the appellants, has submitted
that the learned Single Judge in passing the orders impugned in the
present appeal, had committed an error in placing reliance upon the
decision of this Court rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh, in
WP(c)4517/2008. The learned Single Judge having not examined the case
of the sole respondent, herein, basing on the materials coming on record in
the independent inquiry so held against him in the matter and by solely
placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar
Singh(supra); having interfered with the order of penalty imposed upon the
sole respondent, herein, which was contended to be impermissible. The
learned CGC has also submitted that the interference with the order of
penalty imposed upon the sole respondent, herein, not being on account of
Page No.# 6/12
a consideration being made with the materials coming on record in the
inquiry held against him; the orders impugned of the learned Single Judge
in the present appeal, cannot be sustained and calls for an interference by
this Court.
6. Ms. Gayan, learned CGC, has further submitted that the delay
occasioning in considering the writ petition i.e. WP(c)4518/2008 being
clearly attributable to the sole respondent, herein, in-as-much as, it is on
account of the default on the part of the sole respondent that the matter on
being dismissed for non-prosecution, remained at that stage, for around 8
years. Accordingly, it was contended that in view of the above position, the
learned Single Judge had committed an error in directing payment of a
lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the sole respondent, herein, as
backwages.
7. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the sole
respondent, herein, by referring to the judgment & order, dated
06.06.2023, passed in WP(c)4518/2008, has submitted that the
respondent authorities, had, during the hearing of the said proceedings,
admitted to the fact that the allegations levelled against the sole
respondent, herein, and said Santosh Kumar Singh, were one and the same
and the documents and witnesses examined in the proceedings held
against both of them, were the same. Accordingly, the conclusions as
arrived at by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh(supra), stands
attracted to the case of the sole respondent, herein, and hence, the learned
Single Judge had not committed any error in recording the conclusions so
recorded in the judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, passed in
Page No.# 7/12
WP(c)4518/2008.
8. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has further submitted that the
learned Single Judge in the judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, passed in
WP(c)4518/2008, more particularly, in paragraph No. 16, having recorded
that the sole respondent, herein, in the meantime, had crossed the age of
superannuation, and on the said basis, having not passed any direction for
his reinstatement in service; necessitated the sole respondent to institute a
Review Petition in the matter being Review Petition No. 89/2023.
9. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, by referring to the order, dated
02.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.
89/2023, has submitted that vide the said order, dated 02.08.2023, only
the error occasioning in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment & order, dated
06.06.2023, passed in WP(c)4518/2008, under review; came to be rectified
and no fresh conclusions in the matter was drawn by the learned Single
Judge.
10. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel, has also submitted that the decision
as rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Santosh Kumar
Singh vide judgment & order, dated 10.05.2018, in WP(c)4517/2008,
having already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WA
No.120/2019 and no further appeal therein being instituted by the
appellants, herein, the said judgment & order, dated 10.05.2018, has
attained its finality, the case of the sole respondent, herein, being covered
by the conclusions as reached by the learned Single Judge in the case of
Santosh Kumar Singh(supra); the same would stand applied to the case of
Page No.# 8/12
the sole respondent, herein, also.
11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
also perused the materials available on record.
12. It is an admitted position that the sole respondent, herein, as well as
said Santosh Kumar Singh were proceeded against basing on the same set
of allegations by institution of two separate Disciplinary Proceedings. The
materials available on record further highlighted that the sole respondent
was levelled with only one charge and the said charge is similar in all
respects to the charge No. 1 as levelled against said Santosh Kumar Singh
in the Disciplinary Proceeding so instituted against him.
13. The learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated
10.05.2018, passed in WP(c)4517/2008, on consideration of the matter,
having interfered with the charges so levelled against said Santosh Kumar
Singh and directed for his reinstatement in service with consequential
benefits as provided for in the said judgment & order; the appellants,
herein, during the hearing of WP(c)4518/2008, having admitted to the fact
that although separate Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the
sole respondent, herein, and said Santosh Kumar Singh and separate
findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, the incident involved in the
Disciplinary Proceedings so instituted against both of them, were one and
the same. It was further highlighted that the witnesses examined and the
documents relied upon, were also the same.
Page No.# 9/12
14. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the issues arising in the
matter, had drawn the following conclusions in the judgment & order, dated
06.06.2023, passed in WP(c)4518/2008:
"12. It is also seen that the there is only one charge framed against the petitioner
whereas in respect of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 4517/2008 namely Santosh
Kumar Singh, there were two charges framed. The charge No. 1 framed against
Santosh Kumar Singh (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4517/2008) and the Charge No. 1
framed against the present petitioner are exactly similar. As such, when a Co-
ordinate Bench had already rendered a finding in respect of both the charges as
well as the enquiry conducted and had interfered with the enquiry officer's
findings and the consequential order passed by the disciplinary authority and
which Judgment had already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, the
same is binding on this Court. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Single
Judge vide the Judgment dated 10.05.2018 which is upheld by the Judgment
dated 29.08.2019 by the Division Bench of this Court are also applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the proceedings arises from the same incident and the
materials relied upon and the witnesses who have deposed before the enquiry
proceedings are also exactly the same.
13. Upon consideration of the entire matter, this Court is of the view that the
conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 10.05.2018
in W.P.(C) No.4517/2008 in respect of the findings of the enquiry conducted
against the delinquent employee-Sri Santosh Kumar Singh is acceptable to this
Court as the Article of Charge No. 1 is one and the same against the present
petitioner as well as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4517/2008 and the materials
relied upon and the witnesses who had adduced evidences are also one and the
same.
14. I respectfully concur with the conclusions arrived at by the Coordinate Bench
in W.P(C) No. 4517/2008 and hold that there are no grounds to differ with the
conclusions arrived at by the Co-ordinate Bench in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
15. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Single Judge had,
accordingly, passed the following directions:
"15. In that view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer vide
the enquiry report dated 16.09.1996 are set aside. The consequential order of the
disciplinary authority is also interfered with and set aside.
16. It is submitted that the petitioner had in the meantime already crossed the
age of superannuation and therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to grant
similar relief as had been done by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P(C) No. 4517/2008
and therefore, direct payment of lumsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 as
backwages which as it is considered to be as just and proper compensation for the
injuries suffered by the petitioner because of the suffering endured by the
petitioner."
Page No.# 10/12
16. The sole respondent, herein, having not crossed the age of
superannuation on the date of passing of the judgment & order, dated
06.06.2023, by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4518/2008; proceeded to
prefer a Review Petition being Review Petition No. 89/2023, before this
Court, praying for review of the directions as contained in paragraph No. 16
of the said judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023. The learned Single Judge
on appreciating the fact that the sole respondent had only attained the age
of 51 years as on the date of filing of the said Review Petition and he
having almost 9 years of service left to be rendered; proceeded vide order,
dated 02.08.2023, to dispose of the said Review Petition No. 89/2023,
reviewing the directions as contained in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment
& order, dated 06.06.2023, passed in WP(c)4518/2008. On such review
being made; the learned Single Judge passed the following directions:
"16. In view of the findings arrived at by this Court and in view of the discussions
referred above, the Para-16 of the present Judgment under review now stands
recalled and instead the following directions are issued.
17. In view of the discussions held above, this Court considers it appropriate to
grant similar relief as has been done by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.
4517/2008. As such, in view of the interference by this Court of the enquiry report
dated 16.09.1996 as well as the order of dismissal dated 30.10.2016 passed by
the disciplinary authority, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated as Constable
in CISF with immediate effect and the service benefits applicable to the petitioner
will be released by the authorities as per provisions of law. The petitioner will be
given the notional benefit of his service and the seniority be also protected.
18. In view of the injustice found to have been caused to the petitioner, this court
substance the payment of lumsum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as backwages which would be
considered to be as just and proper compensation for the injuries suffered.
19. The review petition is accordingly closed.
20. This order shall be read together with the Judgment and order dated
06.06.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4518/2008."
17. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in
the judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, passed in WP(c)4518/2008, and
also noticing the allegations levelled against the sole respondent, herein,
Page No.# 11/12
and against said Santosh Kumar Singh, to be one and the same and the
materials relied upon by the appellants for establishing the charges so
levelled against both of them in their respective Disciplinary Proceedings
being one and the same and the fact also admitted to by the appellants,
herein, during the hearing of WP(c)4518/2008; we are of the considered
view that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision
rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh(supra), was not erroneous.
18. The Review Petition No. 89/2023 being mandated to be so instituted
by the sole respondent, herein, on account of an error occasioning in
paragraph No. 16 of the judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, passed by
the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4518/2008, and the learned Single Judge
vide order, dated 02.08.2023, passed in the said Review Petition No.
89/2023 having only rectified the said error and passed consequential
directions similar to the one as passed by the learned Single Judge vide
judgment & order, dated 10.05.2018, in WP(c)4517/2008, which judgment
& order was already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.
120/2019; we are of the considered view that no error is apparent in the
order, dated 02.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review
Petition No. 89/2023, requiring an interference with the same by this Court.
19. The grievance raised by Ms. Gayan, learned counsel for the
appellants, with regard to the directions passed by the learned Single Judge
vide order, dated 02.08.2023, in Review Petition No. 89/2023, for payment
to the sole respondent, herein, a lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as
backwages, being also directed to be so passed by this Court in the case of
Santosh Kumar Singh(supra), which as noticed hereinabove, was already
Page No.# 12/12
upheld by a Division Bench of this Court; we are of the further considered
view that the said grievance raised by the appellants, herein, would not
merit acceptance.
20. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
no error being apparent in the conclusions and directions passed by the
learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 06.06.2023, in
WP(c)4518/2008, and vide order, dated 02.08.2023, in Review Petition No.
89/2023; the same would not call for any interference.
21. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions and the conclusions
reached by us hereinabove; this writ appeal is held to be devoid of any
merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
