1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2983 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 06/02/2026 Judgment Delivered On : _ 09 / 04/2026 Ravindra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Prasad, Aged About 51 Years, R/o B/61 Jarhi Colony, Bhatgaon Area, Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman -Cum - Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Police Station - Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006. 2 - Director Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006. 3 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Colliery Manager, Nava Para U.G. Mines, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 5 - Sub Area Manager, Kalyani Sub Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent- SECL For Intervenor : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh Advocate Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this Petition, the petitioner challenges the show cause notice dated 26.4.2023 (Annexure P/1) and the entirety of the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 23.7.2014. 2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned show cause dated 26.04.2023 (received on 02.05.2023) (ANNEXURE P-1) and the entire enquiry proceedings against the petitioner with respect to charge-sheet dated 23.07.2014. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 declare the entire enquiry proceedings against the petitioner as null and void being conducted contrary to the provisions of standing orders and principles of natural justice and direct the respondent authorities not to proceed and take action against petitioner on the basis of enquiry report. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-1, on 12.11.1992 under the ‘land oustee quota’, after a thorough investigation of all the relevant documents produced by the respondents. During the tenure of service, the petitioner was promoted time to time based on his eligibility and on fulfilling the requirements of the posts held by him. Presently, the petitioner presently is working as Clerk Grade-I. Previously, the respondents issued a Charge Sheet dated 23.7.2014, alleging that a complaint has been received against the petitioner to the effect that the acquired land was recorded in the name of Samal S/o Dashrath Rajwar and the petitioner had obtained his appointment by prepared a forged genealogy (family tree). The respondents alleged that the action of the petitioner constitutes misconduct under clause 26.1, 26.9 and 26.22 of the Standing Orders of the SECL. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the charges levelled against him. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner 4 instituted a civil suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his services. The petitioner stated that he is the son of Mahendra Prasad, who was legally adopted by Dashrath (father of Samal) Ultimately, the civil suit was decreed in the petitioner’s favour. Complainant Ravi Rajware also submitted a representation, in which he specifically stated that he has made no complaint against the petitioner. During the enquiry proceedings, the respondent authorities sought verification regarding the petitioner’s relationship with the land oustee. After a due enquiry, the revenue authorities gave a report corroborating the family tree previously placed on record, confirming its accuracy. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, after conducting a formal enquiry, submitted a report dated 18.8.2015, exonerating the petitioner of all charges. Subsequently, after a substantial lapse of time, again a notice dated 7.2.2018 was issued to participate in the enquiry with regard to the same charge-sheet. The petitioner challenged the same by filing WPS No.4161/2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2021. The subsequent Writ Appeal No.161/2021 preferred was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.6.2021. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.4.2021, wherein, he again exonerated the petitioner finding that the alleged charges were not found proved. Notwithstanding the exoneration in the first enquiry, the respondent authorities issued a second show cause notice dated 12.6.2021, against which, the petitioner preferred WPS No.3299 of 2021, which was disposed of 5 by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 with certain directions/observations. In the ensuing proceedings, the petitioner submitted his reply, however, no final decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, again a fresh enquiry was initiated vide order dated 12/13.2.2022 and a notice was issued to participate in the said enquiry with respect to the same charge- sheet. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 21.2.2022 again exonerating the petitioner finding that the charges have not been proved. Thus, the petitioner was exonerated in all the three Departmental Enquiries. Consequently, respondent No.5 issued the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 26.4.2023 stating that the misconduct was ‘found proved’ and demanding a reply within a mere 72 hours. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of law authorizing the Disciplinary Authority to constitute successive enquiries or to conduct a de novo enquiry on the same charges, as such, the entire proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that notwithstanding the fact that the charges were not proven, the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh show cause notice with a premeditated intent to impose a penalty. He submits that the said notice is biased and proceedings are liable to be quashed. He further submits that a fresh enquiry cannot be initiated solely on the grounds that the Disciplinary Authority dissents from the findings of the Enquiry Officer without assigning any cogent reasons for such disagreement. In support of his submissions, learned counsel or 6 the petitioner would place reliance on the judgments rendered in the matters of M/S. Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33, M/s. Techno Prints Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation and another reported in 2025 INSC 236, Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 11 SCC 517, Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 and K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102. He lastly submits that the allegations of misconduct are unsustainable, especially considering that various officials of the respondent-SECL had exonerated the petitioner across three separate enquiry reports conducted at different points in time. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instant writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. The impugned show cause notice dated 26.04.2023 issued by Sub Area Manager, Kalyani Sub Division, SECL, only directs the petitioner to submit reply and it does not constitute an adverse order affecting the rights of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner fails to establish a valid cause of action. He further submits that the petitioner has not been able show any illegality in the issuance of show cause notice nor it has been shown that that the authority acted beyond its jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner being employed as Clerk Grade-I falls within the definition of a ‘workman’ under the Company’s Standing Orders and the 7 petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority is providing the petitioner a full opportunity of being heard. By issuing the show cause notice along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the authority has called for the petitioner’s explanation not only on the findings but also on the tentative reasons for the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s report. He also submits that the petitioner will have an ample opportunity to prove his case before the Disciplinary Authority regarding his relationship with the original landowner and his status as a direct lineal descendant. The above evidence and related facts shall be duly considered by the concerned authority at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. He submits that if the enquiry officer holds that the charges are not established, such findings are not binding upon the Disciplinary Authority. He also submits that the Disciplinary Authority remains the final authority to adjudicate upon the guilt or innocence of a delinquent public servant. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the findings or recommendations of enquiry officer. He further submits that instead of submission of representation/reply, the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court by filing the instant petition. He submits that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be entertained for quashing a Show Cause Notice or Charge Sheet, except in cases involving lack of jurisdiction or 8 manifest illegality. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent would place reliance on the judgments rendered in the matters of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357, Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 and S. Janaki Iyer Vs. Union of India reported in (2025) 8 SCC 696. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents prays to dismiss the petition. 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings along with the relevant documents annexed to the petition. 7. From a bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 26.4.2023, it appears that the same was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation regarding an allegation that the petitioner obtained service/employment with the SECL by purportedly representing himself as a nominee for acquisition of land bearing Khasra No.52/2 area 0.035 hectares situated at Village Datima, Tehsil Surajpur, belonging to one Samal S/o Dashrath. During the earlier enquiry, the petitioner had clarified that Dashrath (father of Samal) had adopted the petitioner’s father Mahendra Prasad, thereby establishing the petitioner as the nephew of Samal. However, it was stated in the impugned notice that a perusal of the submitted documents and family tree indicates that the petitioner is not found to be a Direct Lineal Descendant as per letter No.CIL/C- 5/53114/3W dated December 1984 issued by the Coal India and letter No.WCL/IR/281, dated 12.12.1984 issued by the Western Coal Fields Ltd., Nagpur, according to which, employment 9 assistance in lieu of land acquisition can be granted only to direct lineal dependents of the landholder. It was further stated that at the time the petitioner secured employment, the land in question was neither recorded in the name of Dashrath nor in the name of the petitioner’s father - Mahendra. The petitioner provided conflicting information with regard to his address as his service record list his address as Village Datima PS Jainagar, PO Datima, District Sarguja (MP), whereas his Leave Travel Concession (LTC) declarations list his address as Bhagalpur, Bihar and by declaring this subsequent address, the petitioner availed the LTC benefits. Based on the aforementioned findings, the respondent authorities stated that prima facie the petitioner acted in violation of 26:1 of the Standing Orders of SECL and also against para 15 of the Appointment Order dated 12/13th of November 1992. 8. Furthermore, when a preliminary enquiry was conducted, it was found that the petitioner did not furnish correct facts. It was alleged that the petitioner had affixed his thumb impression on the entire service documents to project illiteracy, whereas subsequent verification established that he is educated, having successfully completed his Intermediate Examination (Class XII). Such act of the petitioner constitutes that he has committed misconduct and a breach of discipline, which is in violation of clause 26:9 and 26:22 of the Standing Orders. Consequently, in order to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice, a show cause notice was issued to afford the petitioner an opportunity to submit 10 his explanation. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said notice, the petitioner rushed this Court challenging the same seeking judicial intervention. Subsequent to the charge sheet dated 23.7.2014, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 18.8.2015. However, on the basis of such report, acting upon a suggestion given by the General Manager (Vigilance) for conducting a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, a re-enquiry was initiated dated 31.1.2018 with an Assistant Manager appointed as Management Representative along with the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 7.2.2018, directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Later on, one Ravi Rajware (complainant) submitted an application stating that his name has been misused and he had never made any complaint against the petitioner. 9. Against the show cause notice dated 7.2.2018, the petitioner preferred WPS No.4161/2020 before this Court. However, the said petition was dismissed vide 31.3.2021 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to assail any order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the subsequent enquiry and the Enquiry Report, detrimental to the interest of the petitioner, at a later stage. Being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed WA No.161/2021, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.6.2021, as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer made submissions with regard to falsity of charges, while submitting the documents thereof. The Enquiry Officer subsequently submitted his Enquiry Report dated 23.4.2021 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges levelled 11 against him. Nevertheless, it reveals that the respondent authorities, being unsatisfied with these exonerated findings, have issued yet another show cause notice dated 12.6.2021, directing him to submit a fresh reply. The petitioner again rushed to this Court and filed WPS No.3299/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 6.7.2021 with a direction permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation before the Disciplinary Authority. Further, the concerned authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass an appropriate order on its own merits. In compliance with the above direction, the petitioner has filed his reply to the show cause notice dated 12.6.2021. After submission of his reply to the second show cause notice, a fresh enquiry (third enquiry) was directed on the basis of the same charge sheet. In that enquiry, an Enquiry Officer was appointed as also one Mr. R.K. Prasad was appointed as a Management Representative. After submission of the reply by the petitioner, the Enquiry Report dated 21.2.2022 was submitted, wherein it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner under clause 26:1, 26:9 and 26:22 of the Standing Orders were not proved. The aforesaid sequel/chronology of events shows that the respondent authorities have repeatedly issued notices against the petitioner on the same set of allegations. Although the petitioner approached this Court on multiple occasions to challenge the legality of these notices, he was directed to submit his explanation and participate in the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his replies, and ultimately, the allegations 12 levelled against the petitioner were not found to be proved in the various Enquiry Reports. 10. It is a well settled principle of law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Courts generally may not interfere at the stage of a show cause notice. However, in appropriate cases, even at the stage of show cause notice, the interference is warranted when the same is issued without jurisdiction or is vitiated by malafide and there is abuse of process of law. 11. In the present case, a pattern of repetitive litigation has emerged, wherein successive show cause notices have been issued against the petitioner on the same set of allegations. Though the challenge to the said show cause notices in earlier writ petitions did not result in their quashing, he duly complied with the directions of this Court, participated in the enquiry process and submitted his replies. Furthermore, on two occasions, the authorities of the SECL exonerated the petitioner finding no merit in the charges and in some instances, the authorities of the SECL themselves have recommended the closure of the proceedings and exonerated the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents themselves that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found proved during the course of enquiry. When the specific enquiry reports 18.8.2015, 23.4.2021 & 21.2.2022 filed by the respondent authorities themselves, exonerated the petitioner, the issuance of a subsequent show cause notice dated 26.4.2023 would be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner cannot be victimized for the errors or procedural lapses of the respondent authorities. 13 Had the enquiry reports remained pending or did not exonerate the petitioner, the legal position might differ. However, since the respondents own enquiries have consistently exonerated the petitioner, the matter must be treated as concluded and final. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has been subjected to show cause notices again and again, to which replies have been filed the petitioner. Though certain enquiries were conducted, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be unsubstantiated, but the respondent authorities have persistent in issuing fresh notices to the petitioner. Apparently, this continuous process constitutes a grave injustice against the petitioner. 13. The relevant clauses 26:1, 26:9 and 26:22 respectively of the Standing Orders of the SECL are relevant and are reproduced below : 26:1 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property 26:9 Giving of false information regarding one's name, age, father's name, qualification etc. in connection with his employment. 26:22 Any wilful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental to the interests of the company. 14. Similarly, clause 28:1 of the Standing Orders, which stipulates the procedure for conducting a procedural enquiry, reads as under : 14 28:1 Where an employee is charged with a misconduct he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against him by the competent authority and shall be given an opportunity to submit his explanation in writing within a period of not less than three days. On receipt of a workman's explanation when allegations are denied by him, an enquiry shall be held, normally by an Officer or Officers of the company appointed by the management. At the enquiry, the workman concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The workman concerned shall be entitled to be represented or assisted by a co-worker or office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member if so requested by him during the enquiry. 15. In in the matter of M/S. Siemens Ltd. (Supra), the following was held in para 9: 9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262] , but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686] .) It 15 is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice. 16. So far as the permissibility of second or third enquiry is concerned, in a judgment rendered in the matter of K.R. Deb (Supra), the following was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 & 13 thereof : 12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. 13. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant. 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the light of the 16 principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is evident that the contention of the respondent-SECL that the present petition is not maintainable as it only challenges a show cause notice, is legally tenable only as a general rule and not an absolute bar. The maintainability of a challenge in such instances varies from case to case, depending upon the facts of each case. When an authority issues repeated show cause notices and after submission of replies and subsequent enquiries, the charges are not found to be proved, interference by a Writ Court is permissible. Here, the enquiries were conducted by the officers of the SECL at different point of time, who, upon conclusion, submitted the enquiry reports exonerating the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him. The repeated issuance of show cause notice is, therefore, unwarranted and prejudicial. Having reached a definite conclusion in the initial investigation, the authorities were duty-bound to consider all aspects of the matter at the first instance, rather than entertaining subsequent, repetitive complaints on the same set of facts. 18. Evidently, whenever a complaint is made against the petitioner, the authorities act with undue haste to issue a show cause notice. Further, it is observed that with each change in administration, fresh complaints are entertained, resulting in a vexatious cycle of repetitive show cause notices and enquiries, only for such proceedings to be eventually dropped. Once the SECL authorities have concluded that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, it is legally impermissible to again and again 17 entertain complaints of a similar nature on the same subject matter. 19. The petitioner was appointed way back on 12.11.1992. At the time of appointment itself, the authorities ought to have verified the documents submitted by the petitioner. Furthermore, the return filed by the respondents does not disclose as to whether any show cause notice was ever issued against the officers of the SECL responsible for the petitioner’s appointment or against those who subsequently conducted the enquiries and exonerated him. If the enquiry reports submitted by the enquiry officers were deemed incorrect, the respondent-SECL ought to have issued show cause notices to the said officers, seeking an explanation as to how and under which circumstances the petitioner was exonerated. However, a bare perusal of the entire record reveals no such action; instead, it appears that the respondent-SECL is initiating fresh show cause notices based on repetitive complaints. Once a delinquent employee has been exonerated, the matter must reach finality. In the present case, the petitioner has already been exonerated on three separate occasions yet he is being again subjected to the impugned show cause notice based on the same set of allegations. Consequently, the issuance of a fresh show cause notice based on the same subject matter is legally impermissible. While the issuance of a show cause notice generally falls within the administrative domain of the authorities, it remains subject to judicial scrutiny when an employee invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of a Writ Court 18 seeking its quashment. Such intervention is warranted where the notice is issued without jurisdiction, is ex-facie arbitrary or constitutes an abuse of the process of law. 20. Furthermore, it would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner previously instituted Civil Suit No.65A/2014 seeking a mandatory and permanent injunction against illegal interference with his service. The concerned trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2015, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) and issued a permanent injunction restraining the SECL from passing any illegal orders or act in violation of the prescribed procedure of law. This judicial decree remains in force and is binding upon the respondents. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned show cause notice (Annexure P/1) issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 22. Consequently, the Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 6.2.2026 09.04.2026 ------ 13.4.2026 19 WPS No. 2983 of 2023 HEAD NOTE Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction, however, when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable.