1 2025:CGHC:15603-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 222 of 2025 D. R. Deshmukh S/o C.R. Deshmukh Aged About 42 Years (Presently A/a 53 Years), Was Working As Constable In Railway Protection Force, Durg No. 7100 R/o Kasaridih, Police Station Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh R/o Kanhaiyapuri, Kasaridih, Thana Padmnabhpur, Durg (C.G.) … Appellant versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Railway, Railway Board Mantralaya, New Delhi. 2 - Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force R.P.F., South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force R.P.F. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Security Commissioner, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.04.2025 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.04 15:26:24 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS. No. 1314 of 2015 (D.R. Deshmukh Vs. Union of India and others) by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this are that a charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 19.08.2006 by the respondent- department on the allegation that while he was on Sentry duty at RPF Post/Durg along with other constables accused namely Yunus @ Khamman who was arrested on permanent warrant issued by SRM, Raipur in connection with Case No. 02/92 under RP(UP) was kept out side of Hazat with handcuff and the said accused could manage to escape by removing the handcuff and absconded from the RPF custody. The above act of the appellant tantamount to violation of Rule 146.2(i) of RPF Rules, 1987 which renders him liable for disciplinary action. Accordingly, departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant and vide order dated 15.6.2007 respondent No.4 held him guilty of the charges and imposed punishment of reduction of pay in lower stage i.e. Rs.3050 in scale of 3050-4590 for five years with cumulative effect. 3 4. The appellant aggrieved by the said order dated 15.06.2007, preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2007. Against the said dismissal of appeal vide order dated 10.09.2007, the appellant preferred a revision before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred a writ petition, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as it suffers from serious infirmity of law and from perusal of the aforesaid order would go to show that the said writ petition has been dismissed on the basis of delay and latches. So far as genuineness of the adverse action taken against the appellant by the respondents has not been questioned by learned Single Judge. Imposing punishment in a departmental enquiry without providing the appellant opportunity of cross examination and also denying opportunity to lead defence evidence, definitely have effect of vitiating the entire departmental proceeding and thus the punishment imposed also became arbitrary and illegal. This genuine reason definitely makes the appellant entitled for in relief of setting aside the impugned order but only on the ground of delay and latches the petitioner has been deprived of the relief. Apart from it the cause of delay explained by the appellant in the writ petition has not been properly appreciated. He further submits that as there is saying that let justice be done may heaven be fall 4 in cases where genuine rights have been sledged of the appellant resulting into grave injustice to him then instead of depriving the appellant from relief on the basis of technical grounds, granting of relief, ignoring the technicalities such as alleged delay and latches, the relief requested for must have been granted. Not doing so will encourage the respondents to do such type of injustice to the employees. He also submits that the appellant has preferred the writ petition after a lapse of about 7 years, but in fact it is not so and according to the appellant, the cause of action accrued in his favour when the mercy petition submitted by him was returned on 13.12.2013. The petition was filed on 27.03.2015. Thus, the delay, if any is of 1 year 3 months and 15 days, which is explained in the later paragraphs. It is apparently clear that the appellant has filed the writ petition as early as possible because the sequence of incidents, as also mentioned in the petition, are that appellant’s revision petition was dismissed on 08.05.2008. Thereafter, the appellant has moved a mercy petition on 01.08.2013, which was returned on 13.12.2013. Thereafter, the writ petition has been filed on 27.03.2015. 6. He contended that from the date of returning of the mercy petition on 13.12.2013, the appellant has filed the writ petition on 27.03.2015, which means that from said return memo dated 13.12.2013, the petition has been filed within 1 year 3 months and 15 days which cannot be defined as inordinate delay in challenging the impugned order because as soon as the cause of 5 action arises the appellant has preferred this appeal. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Maharashtra Kanajoshi Ors. v. Industrial Development Corporation (2013) 1 SCC 353, in which the Supreme Court has held in para 14 that length of delay is not material, in the interest of justice in the event the claim made by the petitioner is legally sustainable delay should be condoned. For details para 14 may kindly be looked into. All these explanations were submitted before learned Single Bench, by way of written synopsis. It is clear from the material available in record relating to departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner that the evidences adduced have not been properly appreciated by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority and this glaring fact has been completely overlooked that the statement recorded of accused Yunus, allegedly before the petitioner, has been made basis of holding the petitioner guilty, even when the right to cross examine that person was not only denied but the petitioner has also been deprived to examine said person and other witnesses as defense witnesses. This glaring fault in conducting the departmental enquiry goes to the root of the departmental enquiry which has made the inferences drawn completely uncalled for and without any basis. When holding guilty to petitioner itself is illegal then definitely the punishment imposed automatically becomes illegal. In light of said grave injustice the prayed for reliefs should have been granted to the petitioner instead of depriving him from same on technical grounds such as 6 delay and latches. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellant is working with the respondent department. Charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 19.8.2006 and thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed who after conducting departmental enquiry found the charges leveled against him proved. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction of his pay in lower stage i.e. Rs.3050 in scale of 3050-4590 for five years with cumulative effect vide order dated 15.6.2007. The appellant then filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed on 10.9.2007 and thereafter, the revision filed by the appellant was also dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 8.5.2008. The appellant then filed a mercy petition which was not entertained and returned on 13.12.2013. 7 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that it is evident that the petitioner filed the present petition with an inordinate delay of seven years. As per the petitioner, there is delay of only 1 year and 3 months as his mercy petition was returned on 13.12.2013 and thereafter this petition was filed on 27.3.2015. However, as is clear from Annexure P/10, there is no provision for filing of mercy petition and the petitioner has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for approaching the Court with such an inordinate delay. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the findings recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu