1 2025:CGHC:19594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7601 of 2018 1 - Amal Das Tirkey S/o Shri Fulljens Tirkey Aged About 32 Years Village - Darupisa, Post Office Dokra Tehsil Kansabelll District Jashpur, Present Address, Mahasamund Jail Line Bemcha, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Jail Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Jail Jail And Sudharatmak Sevwayen, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jail Suprintendent Through Joint Collector, District Jail Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- “A. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders. B. May kindly be pleased to quash the impugned punishment order dated 21.07.2017 (Annexure P/W and impugned appellate order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P/2). C. May kindly be pleased to allow the consequences benefits of services. D. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Warder with respondent No.2. She would contend that the petitioner was served with the article of charge on 8.4.2017 with the allegation that, while he was on duty on 23.3.2017, he was found in possession of two packets of tobacco in his shoes during frisking. It is further alleged that the conduct of the petitioner was in breach of the provisions of the Jail Manual clauses 252, (3)(b), 263, 273, 280 and 570, as well as Rule (1)(2) & (3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Article of Charge on 21.4.2017 and denied the allegations. The Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. A full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted a penalty 3 of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 21.7.2017. She would further submit that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2018. She would also submit that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is shocking and disproportionate. She would further contend that the petitioner was unaware of the jail rules, as he was appointed only two years prior to the date of the incident. She would also contend that the petitioner was not afforded the proper opportunity of hearing, resulting in the violation of the principles of natural justice. She would pray to quash the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the contentions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that in the matter of departmental enquiry, the scope of judicial review is limited. She would further submit that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and appropriate penalty has been imposed, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 has held that in the matter of departmental enquiry, the High Court while -4- exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may examine issues such as the competency of the authority, the role of the Disciplinary Authority, and violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, there is no allegation with regard to the competency of either the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. 6. With regard to principles of natural justice, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing or that relevant documents were not supplied to him. It is also not a case of the petitioner that he was not found in possession of two packets of tobacco in his shoes whereas the allegations made against the petitioner were found proved. The departmental proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the law, and concurrent findings have been recorded by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi