1 2025:CGHC:16032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2368 of 2017 1. Estak Mohammad Quraishy (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-09-2024 1.1 - (A) Rashida Khan Wd/o Late Estak Mohd. Quraishy Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Shahid Bhagat Singh School, Pandri P.S. Civil Lines, Civil And Revenue District, Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Ekhlak Quraishy S/o Late Estak Mohd. Quraishy Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Shahid Bhagat Singh School, Pandri P.S. Civil Lines, Civil And Revenue District, Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (C) Sahil Quraishy S/o Late Estak Mohd. Quraishy Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Shahid Bhagat Singh School, Pandri P.S. Civil Lines, Civil And Revenue District, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.] 2. Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Haribhoomi Parisar, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The General Manager, Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners No. 1A to 1C : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.08 14:43:40 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or suitable direction to the Respondent Corporation to produce complete record in respect of regularization of petitioner in the post of peon. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or suitable direction to the Respondent Corporation to produce complete record of Departmental Enquiry including preliminary enquiry report against the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash enquiry report and termination notice dt. 05/12/2016. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief by issuing any other suitable writ, direction or order, deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the original petitioner Late Estak Mohammad Quraishi was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Text Book Corporation in the year 1991, he worked there till the re- organization of the State of M.P. An order of regularization of service was issued on 26.09.2008 by respondents No. 2 and 3/department. The services of the petitioner were confirmed against the sanctioned and vacant post of peon. 3. A complaint was made to the Managing Director by one Vikas Mishra to the effect that the services of the original petitioner and other employees were regularized contrary to the rules. 4. One Teerath Ram Ogare and Arun Kumar Yadav filed WPS No. 2810 of 2010 and WPS No. 2814 of 2010 seeking direction to the Text Book Corporation to appoint them against the post of Peon. The Text Book Corporation filed its return on 09.08.2011 to the effect that respondents No. 4 3 to 14 were regularized strictly in accordance with the law. 5. On the complaint of Vikas Mishra, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Managing Director of the respondent corporation and a report was submitted on 19.09.2011. An article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 07.03.2014, wherein there was an allegation that the services of the petitioner were wrongly regularized against the post of Peon, he did not fulfill the requisite qualification and it amounts to misconduct according to the C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 6. One Jamuna Sandiya, General Manager, Text Book Corporation was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 30.06.2014. The inquiry commenced on 10.07.2014. Mr. N.S. Parihar acted as the Defence Assistant of the original petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. 7. During the course of the inquiry, the management produced documentary evidence against the petitioner to prove the charges. The petitioner participated in the proceedings. The inquiry officer submitted its report before the disciplinary authority on 31.10.2014. The second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.12.2016, and thereafter, the original petitioner filed this petition inter alia on the ground that the department failed to prove the charge against the petitioner by leading evidence. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a complaint was made against the petitioner and the departmental inquiry was conducted, but the management could not prove the charge against the petitioner by leading oral evidence. He would further submit that the documents were produced before the Inquiry Officer, but no-one proved the contents of those documents, and therefore, the inquiry report is illegal and is liable to be 4 quashed. He would also submit that the original petitioner is no more and his legal representatives are pursuing this matter. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. 9. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the departmental inquiry is still pending against the original petitioner. Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate would submit that the inquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority on 31.10.2014, and as there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner; the inquiry has not been finalized yet. He would further submit that the original petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for regularization and the allegations have been found proved by the management. He would also submit that there was no need to examine witnesses to prove the allegations against the original petitioner as allegations were proved by producing documentary evidence. He would contend that the original petitioner participated in the inquiry, but failed to rebut those documents. He would further contend that if there are procedural flaws in the departmental inquiry, the petitioner after the conclusion of the inquiry, would get an opportunity to assail it. He would also contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) held that the Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi judicial authority has to 5 examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official. It is further held that the inquiry proceedings cannot be conducted with a closed mind. Para 28 and 30 are reproduced here-in- below:- “28. An Inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Roop Singh Negi (supra), held that the charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The inquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. It is also held that the evidence collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding when no witness was examined to prove the said documents. It is further held that the management witnesses are required to 6 prove the contents of the documents. Para 14 reads as under:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 13. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 26.09.2008 on the post of Peon. A complaint was made before respondents No. 2 and 3 by one Vikas Mishra to the effect that the services of the petitioner and other employees were regularized contrary to existing rules. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for regularization. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and allegations were found proved. The management issued the article of charge on 07.03.2014 to the effect that the services of the petitioner were regularized contrary to the rules and the conduct of the petitioner was in breach of the Rules of the C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charge. The management appointed the inquiry officer and presenting officer. The petitioner was assisted by a Defence Assistant in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner participated in the entire inquiry till the filing of the inquiry report by the inquiry officer. 14. During the course of the inquiry, the management produced documents to 7 prove the allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to rebut those documents by producing relevant documents or oral evidence. The inquiry officer submitted its report on 31.10.2014, wherein the allegations were found proved. 15. A perusal of the inquiry report would show that vide order dated 30.12.1991, the original petitioner was appointed for 89 days. Again, he was appointed for 89 days vide order dated 29.03.1992. Further, he was engaged for 89 days vide order dated 22.05.1993, thus, it was observed by the inquiry officer that the petitioner was a daily rated employee from 1989 to 1992. The petitioner was re-engaged vide order dated 15.07.1993 and it was discontinued vide order dated 21.07.1993. 16. A letter dated 30.08.2004 issued by the Board would show that the petitioner was engaged between 1993 to 2000-2001 on a need basis and he never worked regularly with the management. The inquiry officer further found that in the reply, the original petitioner had admitted these facts. The allegations were admitted by the defence assistant. 17. The inquiry officer on the basis of documentary evidence and admission of the Defence Assistant, recorded a finding that the services of the original petitioner were not regularized in accordance with the law. 18. In the matter of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the department is under obligation to prove the charges against the delinquent officer/employee. In the present case, the department has produced documentary evidence and there is admission on the part of the Defence Assistant of the original petitioner. 19. In the matter of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 8 that where witnesses have not been examined by the department, the contents of the documents cannot be proved. In the present case, the department produced documents to prove the allegations/charges against the original petitioner and the Defence Assistant admitted those allegations; therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the cited case. 20. It is a well settled principle of law that the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority in the matter of departmental inquiry. 21. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner. 22. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant