1 WA No. 708 of 2025 2025:CGHC:49125-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 708 of 2025 1 - Registrar General Cum Disciplinary Authority Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)............(Respondent No. 1) 2 - Deputy Registrar, Cum Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.).....(Respondent No. 2) Appellant(s) versus Sanjay Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Antram Banjare, Aged About 45 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Devrikhurd Bilaspur, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.)......Petitioner Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.09.25 17:58:01 +0530 2 WA No. 708 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 25/09/2025 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 14/07/2025 (Annexure- A-1) passed in WPS No. 6688/2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of and the matter was remitted back to the Inquiry Officer with a direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. Thereafter, liberty was granted to the Disciplinary Authority to take an appropriate decision on the merits of the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to according to their status before the Writ Court. 2. (a) Facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as Assistant Grade-III (Photo Copy Operator) under Respondent No. 1 (Appellant No. 1 herein). On 10/05/2013, Respondent No. 1 issued a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner had allegedly sent obscene SMS messages, made threatening missed calls to a female employee of the High Court, (Complainant), and obtained a mobile SIM using forged identity documents. Based on these allegations, Crime No. 117/2013 was registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 354D & 507 IPC and Sections 66A & 67 of the IT Act. It was further alleged that the petitioner violated the C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, punishable under Rule 10 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 3 WA No. 708 of 2025 (b) The petitioner denied the allegations in his written reply dated 07/02/2014. An enquiry hearing was fixed on 27/12/2013 to record the statement of the Complainant, however, the petitioner’s counsel was out of station and sought an adjournment. Respondent No. 2 partly allowed the request by permitting cross-examination of the Station House Officer while refusing cross-examination of the complainant. During the enquiry, statements were recorded of the Complainant and L.P. Duvedi as prosecution witnesses, and Fanendra Kumar Bisen, Dipak Kumar Kurre, Mahesh Ram Kashyap, and the petitioner as defence witnesses. (c) On 10/07/2014, Respondent No. 2 submitted the enquiry report to Respondent No. 1, concluding that the charges against the petitioner were proved, purportedly considering a representation filed by the complainant on 02/06/2014. The petitioner challenged the report by a representation dated 07/10/2014, contending that it was improper, illegal, and contrary to law. Notwithstanding this representation, on 14/10/2014, Respondent No. 1 held that the petitioner was liable for termination while granting an opportunity to make further submissions, which he did on 16/10/2014. (d) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, after trial, acquitted the petitioner of all alleged charges by judgment dated 19/09/2016. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 failed to consider material evidence and statements of witnesses, including Para 15 of the judgment dated 20/01/2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, which was dismissed on 13/10/2017 and communicated on 4 WA No. 708 of 2025 26/10/2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WPS No. 6688/2017, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, remitting the matter back to the Inquiry Officer with a direction to afford the petitioner an opportunity to cross- examine the complainant and thereafter allowing the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate action on merits. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/respondents in Writ Petition submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable and overlooks crucial aspects of the case. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, despite the fact that the petitioner voluntarily sought an adjournment on 27/12/2013 and actively participated in the departmental enquiry without objection. The observation that the enquiry officer ought to have granted another opportunity is misplaced, as no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, and the issue was never raised before the Appellate Authority. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the scope of judicial interference in departmental punishment is extremely limited, and the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over disciplinary action duly confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case was correctly recognized by the disciplinary authorities as irrelevant to the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry, which is lower than in criminal proceedings. The order of the learned Single Judge to remit the matter for cross-examination of the complainant is therefore contrary to settled principles of law and prejudicial to the exercise of discretion by the disciplinary authority. 5 WA No. 708 of 2025 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and legally correct. The Single Judge rightly observed that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, an important witness, due to the rejection of his adjournment application on 27/12/2013. Such denial strikes at the core of the departmental enquiry and amounts to a procedural irregularity, justifying interference. The learned Single Judge correctly remitted the matter to the Inquiry Officer to grant the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and then allow the Disciplinary Authority to pass an appropriate order on merits. The direction of the learned Single Judge does not comment on the merits of the case but ensures that the principles of natural justice are upheld. The respondents therefore support the order and submit that it should be maintained. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. An analysis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the Court correctly identified a procedural irregularity in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, a key witness, due to the rejection of his adjournment application dated 27/12/2013. Such denial goes to the core of natural justice. Hence, the denial of cross-examination is not a minor irregularity but one that strikes at the very foundation of fair hearing and due process, as cross-examination is essential for a fair hearing, the learned Single Judge rightly remitted the matter 6 WA No. 708 of 2025 to the Inquiry Officer to provide this opportunity without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. Further, the order appropriately balances the rights of the employee facing disciplinary proceedings with the powers of the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority retains discretion to examine evidence and pass a final order after allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. This limited interference under Article 226 ensures procedural fairness while preserving the authority of the departmental process. Established judicial principles consistently recognize that failure to allow cross-examination of a material witness can vitiate an enquiry, and the learned Single Judge’s observations are in line with such precedents. 8. Moreover, the order prevents future challenges to the enquiry by ensuring that the proceedings are conducted fairly. Considering these aspects, it is evident that the learned Single Judge’s order is legally sound, justified, and warrants affirmation. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri