1 2025:CGHC:13273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 97 of 2020 Deepak Joshi S/o Late Jhaduram Joshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Station Maroda, Umerpoti Road, Vijay Chowk, Police Station Newai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Maya Warrier, Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4/State : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- i. To kindly quash the Order dated 26/09/2019 passed in Appeal Case no. 122/B-121/Year 2017-18 by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg (C.G.)(ANNEXURE P/1) BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.03.24 15:00:34 +0530 2 ii. To kindly quash the Order no. 361/AJAK/6/Sa.Stha/113/2017 dated 19/05/2017 issued by the Collector, Durg (Tribal Welfare) removing the petitioner from service. (ANNEXURE P/2) iii. To kindly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Chowkidar in the Pre Matric Scheduled Caste Hostel, Durg (C.G.) with full back wages. iv. 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. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed in Tribal Welfare Department as ‘Daily Wager’ in the year 2006. In the year 2014, his service was converted to ‘Work Charge Employee’. During his posting at Post Metric Tribal Welfare Boys Hostel, Dhamda, Durg, various complaints were made against the petitioner, therefore, departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Despite service of notice to appear before Enquiry Officer, the petitioner did not appear, hence ex-parte order was passed by the Enquiry Officer on 19.5.2017 against him. Based on that enquiry report, service of the petitioner was terminated vide Order dated 19.5.2017 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Collector, Durg, and appeal preferred against it by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg vide Order dated 26.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1), which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service of the petitioner has been terminated without complying the provisions prescribed under Rule 14 of ‘Department of Workcharged and Contingency-paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975’ (for short ‘Rules 1975’) and the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing. Learned 3 counsel further submits that after issuance of charge sheet, the petitioner filed application dated 06.3.2017 (Annexure-P/11) seeking various documents, but those documents were not provided to him, therefore, he was unable to reply to the charges levelled against him and in such compelling circumstances, he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter ex- parte order was passed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. He further submits that since the impugned orders have been passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner without following the principles of natural justice and also the Enquiry Officer prepared enquiry report without providing due opportunity of hearing the petitioner, hence, the instant petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 26.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1), 19.5.2017 (Annexure-P/2) along with enquiry report and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service. 4. The respondents 1 to 4/State filed reply. Learned counsel for the State, while referring to the reply, would submit that after service of charge sheet, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer within 07 days to file his written reply or for personal hearing, but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, rather he filed application seeking various documents, which were confidential. She would further submit that perusal of the impugned Order (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner itself shows that 04 opportunities were granted to the petitioner for submission of his defence, but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, therefore, Enquiry Officer was compelled to proceed ex-parte and in such compelling circumstances, ex-parte enquiry report was prepared holding the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him under Rule 10 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rule 4 1966’). In pursuance of that enquiry report, vide Order dated 19.5.2017 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner has been terminated from services by the Collector, Durg which has also been upheld by the Commissioner, Durg Division. Learned counsel further submits that impugned order(s) has been passed after providing due opportunity to the petitioner, which he himself did not avail arrogantly and scope of interference of Writ Court in such cases is very limited, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner was initially appointed as ‘Daily Wager Employee’ in the year 2006 and subsequently in the year 2014, his employment was converted as ‘Work Charge Employee’. As per the record, when he was posted at Post Metric Tribal Welfare Boys Hostel, Dhamda, Durg, various complaints were made against him, as such departmental enquiry was initiated. But despite various communications, the petitioner did not participate in the departmental enquiry, therefore, ex-parte order was passed by the Enquiry Officer and pursuant to that enquiry report, he has been terminated from his employment. 7. Conduct of the petitioner during enquiry proceedings has been observed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in para 4 of the impugned Order (Annexure-P/1), which reads as under:- 4. अपीलाቕኍ ्ቛारा लिललित त्ቅ ्ቚस्तुत कि्ቅया गया। ्ቚस्तुत लिललित त्ቅ एवं उ्ቈरवादी प्ቌ ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत जवाब ्ቅा अध्ययन ्ቅर उस पर मनन कि्ቅया गया। तत्प्ቐात अधीनस्ቕኍ ्ቅायालय ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत अभि(लेों ्ቅा अवलो्ቅन कि्ቅया गया। उ(यप्ቌ ्ቅे ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत त्ቅ, पर मनन प्ቐात अधीनस्ቕኍ ्ቅायालय ्ቅे ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत अभि(लेों ्ቅा अवलो्ቅन ्ቅरने से स्प्ቖ है कि्ቅ अपीलाቕኍ दीप्ቅ जोशी ्ቅी किनयुकि2 ्ቅाय(ारिरत आ्ቅቦኌस्म्ቅ किनधिध ्ቅलेक्टर दर पर 3 व्ቧ ्ቅे लिलये ्ቅाय ्ቅरने हेतु आदेश किदनां्ቅ 5 28.07.2014 ्ቅे ्ቛारा आदेभिशत कि्ቅया गया। ्ቅलेक्टर (आकिदवासी किव्ቅास शाा) दुग ्ቅे ्ቛारा अपने आदेश ्ቅमां्ቅ 361/आ.जा.्ቅ./6/सा.स्ቕኍा./113/2017 किदनां्ቅ 19.05.2017 ्ቅे ्ቛारा अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅा ्ቅृ त्य शासन ्ቅे किनयम / किनदJशों ्ቅे अनु्ቅु ल नही पाये जाने ्ቅे ्ቅारण छ्ቈीसगढ़ सिसकिवल सेवा (वग्ቅरण, किनयं्ቔण तቕኍा अपील) किनयम 10 ्ቅे तहत अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅी सेवाएं तत््ቅाल ्ቚ(ाव से समा्቎ ्ቅी गई है। ्ቚस्तुत दस्तावेजों ्ቅे अनुसार अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅी किनयुकि2 ए्ቅ किनधि्ቐत अवधिध ्ቅे लिलये ्ቅी गई ቕኍी। अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅे ्ቛारा अपने वरिर्቗ अधिध्ቅारिरयों एवं ्ቅायालय ्ቅे ्ቅमचारिरयों ्ቅे किवरु्ቍ किनरंतर भिश्ቅायत ्ቅी जा रही ቕኍी। सिजस्ቅी जांच आकिद ्ቅराने ्ቅे प्ቐात अपीलाቕኍ ्ቛारा ्ቅी गई भिश्ቅायत ्ቚमाभिणत नहीं होने से नस्तीब्ቍ कि्ቅया जाता रहा। अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅो उन्ቅे किनरंतर अनुपቦኌस्ቕኍधित एवं छा्ቔावास में छा्ቔों से मारपीट एवं गाली गलौज ्ቅरने ्ቅे अलावा ्ቅायालय ्ቅे स्टाफ ्ቅे साቕኍ दुኚᮔयवहार ्ቅरता ቕኍा। साቕኍ ही किबना अनुमधित ्ቅे छा्ቔावास में किनवास कि्ቅया जाना वरिर्቗ अधिध्ቅारिरयों से इगड़ा ्ቅरना, बहस ्ቅरना आकिद आरोप अधिधरोकिपत ्ቅर उन्हें छ.ग. सिसकिवल सेवा (वग्ቅरण, किनयं्ቔण तቕኍा अपील) किनयम 14 ्ቅे अंतगत किव(ागीय जांच कि्ቅये जाने हेतु सूचना ्ሺापन ्ቅमां्ቅ 2254/आ.जा.्ቅ./61/सा/स्ቕኍा/2016 किदनां्ቅ 23.02.2017 जारी ्ቅर आरोपों ्ቅे संबंध में लिललित ्ቚधितवाद ्ቚस्तुत ्ቅरने किनदJभिशत कि्ቅया गया है। अपीलाቕኍ ्ቛारा उ2 सूचना ्ቅा ्ቅोई जवाब ्ቚस्तुत नहीं कि्ቅया गया। ्ቚ्ቅरण में जांच अधिध्ቅारी एवं ्ቚस्तुत्ቅता अधिध्ቅारी ्ቅी किनयुकि2 ्ቅरते हुये किव(ागीय जांच ्ቅायवाही ्ቚारं( ्ቅी गयी। अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅो लगातार किदनां्ቅ 23.02.2017 ्ቅे प्ቐात किदनां्ቅ 22.03.2017, 30.03.2017 एवं 05.04.2017 ्ቅो प्ቔ जारी ्ቅर अपना प्ቌ ्ቚस्तुत ्ቅरने अवसर ्ቚदान कि्ቅया परन्तु अपीलाቕኍ ्ቛारा उन पर लगाये गये आरोप ्ቅे संबंध में ्ቅोई ्ቚधितवाद ्ቚस्तुत नहीं कि्ቅया गया और न ही जांच अधिध्ቅारी ्ቅे सम्ቌ उपቦኌस्ቕኍत हो्ቅर अपना ्ቅቕኍन ्ቅराया गया। इससे यह स्प्ቖ होता है कि्ቅ अपीलाቕኍ आरोप प्ቔ में उ्ቤेलित अधिधरोकिपत आरोप प्ቔ ्ቅे संबंध में ्ቅोई ्ቚधितवाद नहीं कि्ቅये जाने से उ2 आरोप उन्हें स्वी्ቅार रहा है, ऐसा मान्य कि्ቅया जा स्ቅता है। दस्तावेजों में संल्ሿ जांच ्ቚधितवेदन एवं इस्ቅे साቕኍ संल्ሿ उपቦኌस्ቕኍधित 6 पंजी तቕኍा ्ቅमचारिरयों एवं छा्ቔों ्ቅे ्ቛारा किदये गये ्ቅቕኍन ्ቅे अनुसार अपीलाቕኍ पर लगाये गये आरोप ्ቚमाभिणत पाया जाता है। अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅा यह त्ቅ कि्ቅ उन्हें सुसंगत दस्तावेज उपलब्ध नही ्ቅराया गया और न ही बचाव ्ቅा अवसर ्ቚदान कि्ቅया गया। इस संबंध में यह स्प्ቖ है कि्ቅ अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅे ्ቛारा जांच अधिध्ቅारी ्ቅे सम्ቌ उपቦኌस्ቕኍत हो्ቅर दस्तावेजों ्ቅी मांग ्ቅी गई है और उन्हें न सुना गया हो, इस संबंध में ्ቅोई ्ቚमाण स्वरूप दस्तावेज अपीलाቕኍ ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत नहीं कि्ቅया गया है। समस्त अभि(ले ्ቅे अवलो्ቅन से यह (ी स्प्ቖ है कि्ቅ अपीलाቕኍ भिश्ቅायत ्ቅरने ्ቅा आदी एवं अनावश्य्ቅ भिश्ቅायत ्ቅर उ्ሴ अधिध्ቅारिरयों ्ቅे आदेश/किनदJशों ्ቅे अवहेलना ्ቅरने ्ቅा आदी है जो शास्ቅीय सेव्ቅ ्ቅे आचरण किनयमों ्ቅे किवपरीत है। अधीनस्ቕኍ ्ቅलेक्टर दुग ्ቅे ्ቛारा अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅे ्ቅतኚᮔय एवं ኚᮔयवहार आकिद ्ቅे संबंध में किव(ागीय जांच सकिमधित ्ቅे ्ቛारा जांच ्ቅराने ्ቅे प्ቐात आरोप सिस्ቍ पाये जाने ्ቅे फलस्वरूप शासन किनयम एवं किनदJशों ्ቅे किवपरीत अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅा आचरण ्ቚमाभिणत पाये जाने पर छ्ቈीसगढ सिसकिवल सेवा (वग्ቅरण, किनयं्ቔण तቕኍा अपील) किनयम 10 ्ቅे तहत अपीलाቕኍ ्ቅी सेवा समा्቎ ्ቅरने संबंधी पारिरत आदेश उधिचत ्ቚतीत होता है। ्ቅलेक्टर दुग ्ቅे ्ቛारा पारिरत आदेश किदनां्ቅ 19.05.2017 में ्ቅलेक्टर दुग ्ቅे ्ቛारा ्ቚ्ቅरण ्ቅी सम्पूण ቦኌस्ቕኍधित ्ቅो स्प्ቖ ्ቅरते हुये आदेश पारिरत कि्ቅया गया है सिजसमें कि्ቅसी ्ቚ्ቅार ्ቅे हस्त्ቌेप ्ቅी आवश्य्ቅता ्ቚतीत नहीं होती है। फलस्वरूप अधीनस्ቕኍ ्ቅलेक्टर (आकिदवासी किव्ቅास शाा) दुग ्ቅे ्ቛारा पारिरत आदेश किदनां्ቅ 19.05.2017 हस्त्ቌेप योग्य न होने से यቕኍावत रा जाता है। अपील अस्वी्ቅार ्ቅी जाती है। 8. It was not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet was served to the petitioner on 24.02.2017, thereafter the petitioner filed application seeking some documents without making his presence before the Enquiry Officer for submission of his defence or for personal hearing. As per the impugned order, the petitioner was repeatedly requested to appear before the Enquiry Officer i.e. on 23.2.2017, 22.03.2017, 30.3.2017 7 and 05.4.2017, but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, Enquiry Officer was compelled to pass ex-parte order against him. 9. It is settled position of law that in the cases related to departmental enquiry, the writ Court ought to have slow in interfering in the impugned order(s). The Supreme Court in this regard in the case of S. R. Tewari Vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602 in paragraph 19, 20 & 21 have held as under :- “19. In the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1182, this Court held that various parameters of the court’s power of judicial review of administrative or executive action on which the court can interfere had been well settled and it would be redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of decisions. The Court further held: “11. ....It is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach, or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the court would be justified in interfering with the same.” “20.The court can exercise the power of judicial review if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise of power would stand vitiated. The court may be justified in exercising the power of judicial review if the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had been passed by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon the authority by the legislature. Thus, the court has to be satisfied that the order had been passed by the authority only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety before it interferes. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and interfering with the order of the authority may impose heavy administrative burden on the State or may 8 lead to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 456; 6 and State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080).” “21. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., AIR (2000) SC 801, this Court explaining the scope of judicial review held that the court must act with great caution and should exercise such power only in furtherance to public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court must always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.” 10. A similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1783 and also in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553, wherein the Supreme Court has in a very categorical terms held that in departmental enquiry proceedings the scope of Court's are very limited. It has been reiterated by the Supreme Court that in a disciplinary proceeding matters the Court cannot substitute its own finding and thus by replacing the finding arrived at by the authority that too after detailed appreciation of the evidence brought on record. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court under Article 226 of Constitution , the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the High Court under Article 226 would not reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different and independent finding. 11. Further in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Supreme Court has observed as under in paragraph 12 & 13, which is reproduced hereinunder :- 9 “12. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.” “13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 10 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the same issue in the case of “State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya” reported in 2011 (4) SCC 584 in paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi -Versus- Union of India – 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan – 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India -Versus- Degala Suryanarayana – 1999 (5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil– 2001 (1) SCC 416).” 13. Once when the law is settled that in disciplinary proceedings unless there is a ground of perversity or the finding being contrary to the evidence on record or there being technical flaw in the conducting of the departmental enquiry, the Court should be slow in interfering with such findings which are based on evidence which has come on record. 14. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is evident from the record that in pursuance of allegations made against the petitioner, vide 11 Communication, dated 06.3.2017, he sought various documents for his defence against the charge sheet, which he could otherwise have obtained by participating in the departmental enquiry. It is evident from enquiry report (Annexure-R/1) that despite repeated communication made to him to participate in the departmental enquiry, he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, ex-parte enquiry report was prepared against him. In such situation, it cannot be said that due opportunity of hearing has not been provided to him, as because of his own arrogance, he himself did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. 15. Undisputedly, the petitioner was working as ‘Work Charged Employee’, as such, his service conditions shall be governed by the Rules 1975. Sections 13 & 14 of the said rules provides procedures for imposing penalty upon the contingency/workcharged employees. Rule 14(1)(,d)(n¨)(rhu) contemplates that the delinquent employee shall be informed about the proposed action to be taken against him by written communication and also by providing due opportunity to put his defence/explanation and after considering his defence/explanation, any order under Rule 13 can be passed. Though in the instant case, both the authorities i.e. the Collector and the Commissioner have mentioned about provisions of Rules 1966 instead of Rules 1975, but only because of such wrong mentioning of the rule, it cannot be held that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, because as has been stated in the preceding paragraphs that, despite repeated communication, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. If he was seeking any documents which has not been provided to him, then he can raise his objection in this regard by participating in the enquiry proceedings. But not providing the documents by the respondent/ department, sought for by the petitioner will not entitle the petitioner to refuse 12 to participate in the enquiry proceedings, hence, contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable. 16. Since the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings despite repeated communication, therefore, there was no occasion before the department to produce documents sought for by the petitioner during enquiry proceedings. Hence case law referred by the petitioner, i.e. Lalit Pratap Singh v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC Online Chh 739 is not helpful to the petitioner in the instant case. 17. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders dated 26.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1) and 19.5.2017 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg and Collector, Distt. Durg respectively. 18. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini