1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on: 13/06/2025 Judgment Delivered on: 02/09//2025 WPS No. 3889 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ganpat Singh Aged About 55 Years Working On The Post Of Mining Sirdar Grade - A (P C S A), N E I S No.- 22924534, S E C L, Siwani Mines, Bhatgaon Area, Dist.- Surajpur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Secl Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Director (Personnel) S E C L Headquarter At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Chief General Manager S E C L, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon, P.S. - Bhatgaon, Dist.- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Area Personnel Manager S E C L, Kalyani Sub- Area, Bhatgaon Area, P.S. - Bhatgaon, Dist.- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Mines Manager Sivani Mines, S E C L, Bhatgaon Area, P.S. - Bhatgaon, Dist.- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. CAV Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 07- 05-2025, whereby the petitioner has been suspended, and a departmental enquiry is contemplated and prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.03 11:07:26 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, thereby to declare, the impugned charge sheet cum suspension dated 07-05-2025 and enquiry proceedings arising out of it (filed as annexure P/1), as illegal and arbitrary and further to quash it. 10.3 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the responsible authorities who passed impugned charge sheet cum suspension dated 23-06-2021, knowing well that the issue involved in this case has been taken cognizance earlier by Hon'ble court in repeated writ petition and stay were granted to the petitioner and on that account only the entire charge sheets were cancelled by SECL vide dated 04-10-2021 and acting on such undertaking of SECL the series of writ petition got disposed vide dated 07-01-2025 and on same issue once again they issued impugned charge sheet merely to defeat the object and process of justice, and further to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Mining Sirdar with the respondent/SECL on 10-07-2000. At the time of his appointment, all the documents had been duly verified and scrutinized. He was given a promotion to the post of Mining Sirdar “Grade-A”. After about 19 years of his service, a charge sheet was issued against him on 20/21-04- 2019, on the basis of a complaint made by a third person that he obtained employment on the basis of forged certificates. The petitioner challenged the said charge sheet by filing the W.P.S. No. 5752/2019 before this Court. When the Court has directed the respondent/SECL to file reply, they amended the charge sheet and issued an amended charge sheet dated 05-09-2019. Thereafter, another W.P.S. No. 8542/2019 was filed by the petitioner challenging the charge sheet dated 05-09-2019. In the second writ petition (W.P.S. No. 8542/2019), an interim order of stay was passed on 17-10-2019, against the further proceedings of the charge sheet dated 05-09-2019. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 23-06-2021, a third charge sheet was 3 issued by the respondent/SECL to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, and the earlier charge sheets were cancelled. The petitioner filed another W.P.S. No. 4628/2021 before this Court, challenging the charge sheet dated 23-06-2021, in which also, an interim order of stay was also passed on 02-09-2021. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed another W.P.S. No. 446/2020 for a direction to the respondent/SECL to conclude the departmental enquiry and to provide a copy of the enquiry report, which was disposed of on 20-01-2020, directing the respondent/SECL to conclude the enquiry. A Contempt Case No. 522/2021 has also been filed by the petitioner against the respondent authorities, in which they tendered their unconditional apology, and the contempt case was disposed of vide order dated 11-12-2023. All the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, i.e. W.P.S. No. 5752/2019, W.P.S. No. 8542/2019, W.P.S. No. 4628/2021, have been disposed of as having become infructuous on the ground that the charge sheet against the petitioner is withdrawn. Again, on 07-01-2025, another charge sheet was issued against the petitioner by the respondent/SECL on the same set of allegations, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheets are repeatedly issued against the petitioner without there being any preliminary inquiry into the complaint made against him. After verification of all the documents submitted by him, he was given an appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Mining Sirdar Grade-A. Repeated issuance of a charge sheet would itself show that the respondent/SECL does not have sufficient material to enquire against the petitioner. He also submits that the person who made a complaint against the petitioner in the year 2019 again sent an e-mail to the respondent/SECL on 14-08-2021 saying that the earlier complaint made by him was with mala fide intention. He would further submit that the enquiry on the second charge 4 sheet was concluded on 02-02-2020, and the charges against the petitioner were found disproved. Once the charges have not been proved, a subsequent charge sheet on the same set of allegations cannot be issued against the petitioner. Knowing very well that the writ petitions are pending before this Court, the respondent/SECL were issuing charge sheets one after one, that too on the same cause of action. The conduct of the respondent/SECL authorities is unfair and biased to throw out the petitioner from employment. Further, a charge sheet cannot be issued on the basis of a complaint made by a third person through e-mail, who has never been interrogated. He would also submit that the documents, which are complained to be forged, have been verified by the respondent/SECL and the same was verified repeatedly by the department. The respondent/SECL are relying upon the letter of S.P., Ramgarh, who made his reference that the photograph of the person sent by the respondent/SECL does not match the person concerned. It is very difficult to match a person or their residential address after about 20 years. Therefore, after withdrawal of the earlier charge sheets, issuance of a subsequent charge sheet is only an abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the order passed by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. 25426/2003, order dated 03-03-2015 (G.D. Purohit v. State of M.P. and Others). 4. Responding to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent SECL, in support of their reply, submits that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent/SECL and there is an industrial dispute, and the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Certified Standing Order, which provides for an appeal against the order of the authority, as well as complaints of unfair treatment or wrongful action of the authority to the management. He would further submit 5 that the employment of the petitioner is based on forged documents/certificates, and after receiving a complaint by one Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, who is posted at Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (Jharkhand), through e-mail dated 24-03-2019, the investigation started. During the investigation, the Board of Mining Examination and the Director of Mines Safety (Exam.), Dhanbad (Jharkhand), vide their letter dated 13-02- 2020, certified that the gas testing certificate submitted by the petitioner was fake. By another letter dated 19-02-2021, they informed about discrepancies found in the certificate of the petitioner that the printed proforma is different, entries is differently typed and a difference in the signature of the Secretary, Mining Examination Board and facsimile of the Chairman, Mining Board. The verification report was also obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh (Jharkhand), dated 15-02-2020, and as per the verification report, the photographs pasted in the verification roll is of some other person and not of the petitioner. In the complaint, two documents of Mining Sirdar Competency Certificate No. 49091 and Gas Testing Certificate No. 57795 were attached, and the certificate of the same number has also been submitted by the petitioner while getting employment in the SECL. A. He would further submit that in view of the above facts, a charge sheet was issued on 20-04-2019 to the petitioner. Reply was submitted by the petitioner and then an enquiry committee was constituted, but for want of verification report from the certificate issuing authority, the enquiry proceeding could not be concluded. The petitioner had challenged the charge sheet dated 20-04-2019 in W.P.S. No. 5752/2019. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent/SECL issued a revised charge sheet dated 05-09-2019 in proper format. The allegation in the revised charge sheet were same as it was issued on earlier point of time and only the list of documents and list of witnesses were added. It is not the second charge sheet, but infact it is the revised charge sheet. The revised 6 charge sheet was also challenged by the petitioner in W.P.S. No. 8542/2019 before this Court, in which an interim order dated 17-10-2019 was passed staying the further departmental enquiry proceeding. Since, no verification report could be obtained from the certificate issuing authority, the enquiry officer declared the end of the departmental enquiry proceeding. Another W.P.S. No. 446/2020 was filed by the petitioner for a direction to the authorities to conclude the departmental enquiry proceeding in relation to the charge sheet dated 20-04-2019 and revised charge sheet dated 05-09-2019. In the said W.P.S. No. 446/2020, an order was passed on 21-01-2020 directing the respondent/SECL to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time. By the letter dated 24-02-2020 (Annexure R-12), it was informed that the enquiry officer, mistakenly mentioned that the enquiry proceeding was closed, but it was not closed and it is continued and informed to appear in the enquiry proceeding. To avoid the controversy of charge sheet dated 20-04-2019 and 05-09-2019, the Mine Manager, Shivani Underground Mine, has withdrawn both the charge sheet dated 20-04-2019 and 05-09-2019, and issued a fresh charge sheet on 23- 06-2021. The enquiry committee was constituted for enquiry of charge sheet dated 23-06-2021 vide order dated 29-07-2021. In the meeting of enquiry committee, the petitioner not appeared and he again filed another W.P.S. No. 3405/2021, challenging the charge sheet dated 23-06-2021. In another W.P.S. No. 4628/2021, an interim order was passed on 02-09-2021 staying the departmental enquiry proceeding of charge sheet dated 23-06-2021. The order dated 02-09-2021 was obtained by the petitioner by suppressing the fact that he has already filed a W.P.S. No. 3405/2021 against the charge sheet dated 23-06-2021. On 04-10-2021, the charge sheet dated 23-06-2021 was also withdrawn by the management of SECL. All the writ petitions were came up for hearing on 08-01-2025 and dismissed on that day as rendered infructous. 7 It is further submitted that the departmental enquiry proceeding was objected by the petitioner by filing various petitions, but it is still not concluded and the allegation against the petitioner is still stands. Considering the documents available with the respondent/SECL, the authorities are of the opinion that the act of the petitioner is against the Clauses 26.9 and 26.22 of the Certified Standing Order of SECL and then issued charge sheet dated 07-05-2025, including the statement of imputation of charges, article of charges, list of documents and list of witnesses. The allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature and therefore, he was suspended with immediate effect and his headquarter was fixed at the office of Colliery Manager, Shivani UG Mine. In view of the gravity of the allegation and charge of misconduct levelled against the petitioner, the action of the respondent SECL is just and proper and to provide proper and fair chance to defend his case, the enquiry is initiated. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1467 (Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another) and 2015 AIR SCW 1195 (Krishna Hare Gaur v. Vinod Kumar Tyagi and Ors.), and W.A. No. 548/2024, order dated 03-09-2024 passed by Hon’ble division Bench of this Court (Lalan Prasad v. SECL and Others). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition by the parties and gone through their pleadings. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the writ petition against the charge sheet dated 07-05-2025 by saying that it is the fourth charge sheet in the same issue and on the same set of facts. From perusal of the initial charge sheet dated 20-04-2019 (Annexure P-4), it transpires that there was an allegation against the petitioner that he submitted fake certificates at the time of his employment with the SECL. The said charge sheet was challenged in W.P.S. No. 5752/2019, in which no interim relief was granted to 8 the petitioner on 07-08-2019. Thereafter, on 05-09-2019, an amended charge sheet was issued (Annexure P-5), and from perusal of the said amended charge sheet dated 05-09-2019, it transpires that the allegations are the same and the list of documents and the list of witnesses are added. This amended charge sheet, dated 05-09-2019, was again challenged in W.P.s. No. 8542/2019, in which further action commenced pursuant to the charge sheet dated 05-09-2019, was stayed. At 8th meeting of the enquiry committee on 11-11-2019, the respondent/SECL sought time to file documents, which were still awaited from the Mine Safety Directorate, Dhanbad (Jharkhand). On 21-01-2020, an order was passed in W.P.s. No. 446/2020, directing that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided within the stipulated period. The said order is passed on the submission of the petitioner that the departmental proceeding has been conducted and concluded. The claim of the petitioner that the departmental enquiry was conducted and concluded is based on the note sheet of the enquiry committee dated 11-11-2019 in which is mentioned that mentioned that:- "प्रबंधन समि मि न कहा आरोमि क गारो क इमिनगा सरोदारो समिमिक खान सरोक्षा मिनदाशालय धनबंदा, झारोखाण्ड क कयलय " सत्यन क लिलय भेजा गाय हा'। समिमिक सत्यमि हान क बंदा " जाच समि मि क स क्षा प्रस् करूं गा इसक लिलय झा स य मिदाय जाय। त्ष्च - जाच अलिधकरो/ न सर्वसम् मि स जाच कयर्वहा/ क2 स मि3 क2 घोषणा क2।" 7. It cannot be said that the said note sheet is the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, but it was the adjournment of the proceeding on 11-11- 2019. Another development in the case that the petitioner filed a W.P.S. No. 446/2020 before this Court, claiming that though the enquiry was concluded, the finding has not been made known to the petitioner, and therefore, he made his representation and prayed for a decision on his representation. The said W.P.S. No. 446/2020 is disposed of on 21-01-2020, directing that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided within the stipulated period. 9 In compliance of the order dated 21-01-2020, the respondent/SECL issued a letter dated 24-02-2020 (Annexure R-12), and informed the petitioner that the enquiry was not concluded, but only the proceeding of 11-11-2020 is closed, and the respondent/SECL is at liberty to continue the enquiry proceeding. This letter, dated 24-02-2020 (Annexure R-12) is not challenged by the petitioner. 8. As per the respondent/SECL, on 11-11-2019, they sought time to submit documents as the same was awaited from the Mine Safety Directorate, Dhanbad, and the enquiry proceeding was not concluded, as informed by the respondent/SECL to the petitioner vide letter dated 24-02-2020, after receipt of the verification report from Mines Safety Directorate, Dhanbad, and also from the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, the respondent/SECL issued another fresh charge sheet dated 23-06-2021 (Annexure R-13), including the statement of imputation of charges, article of charges, list of documents and witnesses. In the letter dated 23-06-2021 (page 70 of the return of the respondent/SECL), the two referred charge sheets dated 20-04-2019 and 05- 09-2019 were cancelled, and a fresh charge sheet was issued. 9. On 07-08-2021, another letter was issued to the petitioner by the respondent/SECL, (page 71 of the return filed by the respondent/SECL) stating therein that in the earlier charge sheet dated 20-04-2019 and 05-09- 2019, the list of witnesses could not be supplied by mistake, and therefore, the same is being annexed with the present charge sheet. Para 1 of the said letter dated 07-08-2021 is relevant here, which is as under:- "1- उयक्त मिर्वषय क सदाभे " आक यहा अर्वगा करोन चहा हा9 मिक आरो त्र क0 536 मिदानक 23.06.2021 क ध्य स <र्व " जारो/ आरो त्र क0 107 मिदानक 20.04.2019 एर्व आरो त्र क0 1474 मिदानक 05.09.2019 क आरो त्र क0 1474 मिदानक 05.09.2019 " आरोम्भे जाच कयर्वहा/ क स्थमिगा करो हा?ए आक उयक्त आरो त्र, Statement of imputation of charges, article of charges, list of documents and list of witness क सथ जारो/ मिकय गाय थ। रोन् भे<लर्वशा उक्त आरो त्र क सथ दास् र्वजाA क2 स<च/ क उरोन् अगाल जा " गार्वहाA क2 स<च/ आक उक्त आरो त्र क सथ 10 नहाB दा/ जा सक2 थ/ जा इस त्र क सथ सलग्न करो आक स<चनथ भेजा/ जा रोहा/ हा'।" 10. From perusal of all three charge sheets, the allegations and contents of the allegations are the same. It is only due to the technical defect, the earlier charge sheet was cancelled, and a fresh charge sheet was issued on 23-06- 2021. It is further submitted by the respondent/SECL that the authorities had decided to withdraw the charge sheet, and the same was withdrawn by the management of SECL on 04-10-2021 (Annexure R-16). Thus, there is no finding on any of the charge sheets issued against the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was closed and charges against the petitioner were not found proved, and the enquiry report was submitted on 02-02-2020, but from perusal of the said document (page 66 of the writ petition), it transpires that it is with respect to the charge sheet dated 20-04- 2019, which was the initial charge sheet. In the contents of the said report, it has also come that the meeting of departmental proceedings were conducted on various dates and lastly on 11-11-2019. As discussed hereinabove, on 11- 11-2019, the respondent/SECL sought time to file documents and the proceeding was adjourned. This was informed by the respondent/SECL to the petitioner on 24-02-2020. Further, the petitioner himself had filed W.P.S. No. 446/2020 for a direction to decide his representation as he could not receive the findings of the enquiry. The communication dated 24-02-2020 is not challenged by the petitioner, by which it was informed that the enquiry proceeding is not concluded. 11. There is no finding on any of the charge sheets, and ultimately, the charge sheet dated 23-06-2021 was also cancelled on 04-10-2021. Since the charge sheets were cancelled, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed as having become infructuous, vide order dated 08-01-2025. Thereafter, the charge sheet cum suspension order dated 07-05-2025 issued against the petitioner. 11 12. In the matter of Krishna Hare Gaur (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that since the appointment was on the basis of bogus certificates, the principles of res judicata will not be attracted. In para 15, it has been held that:- “15. When the appointment is made dehors the rules, the same is a nullity. In such an eventuality, the statutory bar like doctrine of res judicata is not attracted. In the case of Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.¹, this Court held as under:- "From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an even-tuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars H like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/docu-ment amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est." Since respondent No.1 obtained appointment on the basis of bogus certificates, A in our considered view, the principle of res judicata will not be attracted to the case on hand.” 13. In the matter of “Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. V. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha”, 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or a show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting b a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma's, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh 26, Ulagappa v. Commr. 27, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam 12 Ghouse 28 and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana29.) 11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra30 (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh31.) 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject- matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the e charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.” 14. The charge against the petitioner is that he obtained employment on the basis of fake certificates of Mining Sirdar Competency Certificate and Gas Testing Certificate. The allegation of the charge sheet requires a detailed hearing on the facts as well as on the law. The heading of the charges are supplemented by detailed imputations of malafide, lack of sufficient evidence, and other facts, which are factual aspects on merits and will obviously have to be decided by the departmental authorities. In a service matter, a charge sheet which formally initiates disciplinary proceedings against an employee, can be challenged only under specific circumstances. 15. Further, in the case of Lalan Prasad (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that:- “6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that charge- sheet has been issued and the inquiry is going on, as such it is at premature stage for interference in view of well settled position of law with regard to interference in the 13 departmental inquiry at the time of issuance of charge- sheet. The power of this Court of interference at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet is very limited unless it is found that charge-sheet is without jurisdiction or authority. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge charge- sheet, inquiry or if any adverse order is passed against him.” 16. The petitioner relied upon the G.D. Purohit case (supra), but the same would not benefit him because the G.D. Purohit case would talk about the consideration of the second enquiry in the same charge sheet. In that case, the enquiry officer found that the charges were not proved, and the department decided to make a fresh enquiry and issued an order appointing the enquiry officer. In that enquiry, a report was submitted and found that some of the charges against the employee were proved, and a penalty was imposed. In that context of the facts, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Kanailal Bera v. Union of India and Others, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 63), held that a second enquiry on the same set of charges is not permissible. In the present case, none of the enquiries were concluded, and vide letter dated 24-02-2020, the respondent/SECL informed the petitioner that the enquiry was not concluded and he is to cooperate in the enquiry proceeding. The said letter is not challenged by the petitioner. There is no finding on any charge sheet. Due to a technical defect, the charge sheet dated 20-04-2019, 05-09-2019 and 23- 06-2021 is cancelled, and a fresh charge sheet is issued. Thus, the facts of both cases are distinguishable, and no benefit can be extended to the petitioner from the G.D. Purohit case (supra). 17. From the foregoing discussions, I do not find any scope of interference in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok