1 2025:CGHC:53516-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 783 of 2025 The Superintendent Of Post Department Of Posts Bilaspur Division, Post And District Bilaspur, Through Senior Post Master, Head Post Oce, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Shri Santram Patre S/o Ex-Branch Postmaster Munmuna Pandariya, Tahsil District Bilaspur, C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, District - Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. SGI For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.03 17:52:23 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition (L) No. 32/2015, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The workman (respondent No.1 herein) was posted as Branch Postmaster, Munmuna (Pandariya), District Bilaspur, between 31.7.1979 to 30.12.1989. It is alleged that he was a habitual absentee. It was also alleged that he lost two receipts, i.e., Receipt Nos. 87 & 89 and failed to comply with the directions issued by the Superior Authorities. Furthermore, it was alleged that he accepted a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- to remove receipt No. 89 from the Branch records. 4. The workman submitted a reply to the article of charge dated 7.3.1990. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and a penalty 3 of termination from service was in>icted vide order dated 25.10.1990, with e?ect from 30.12.1989. The workman pleaded that a proper enquiry was not conducted; he was not permitted to cross-examine the departmental witnesses, and relevant documents were not provided. He had prayed for reinstatement with full back-wages. 5. The petitioner Aled a reply denying the averments of the statement of claim. It was contended that serious allegations were made against the workman. A full->edged departmental enquiry was conducted, during which witnesses were examined, and the workman was a?orded sucient opportunity. Thereafter, an appropriate penalty was imposed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “xxx xxx xxx 5.Learned Tribunal vide order dated 8.8.2011 decided the preliminary issue and held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the management against the workman was neither proper nor legal. 6 Learned Tribunal further held that the management was required to prove the charges by adducing clinching 4 evidence. Learned Tribunal considered the affidavit of the management's witness, namely Thakur Ram Deewan, who stated that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer; a Presenting Officer was appointed, and the witnesses were examined. However, he admitted that Mr. M.K. Jain was not an Enquiry Officer. In cross- examination, he admitted that he did not know the position 7. Learned Tribunal passed the award of reinstatement: with 50% back- wages. A perusal of the evidence of the managemerit's witness would clearly indicate that he was unaware of (1) the allegations made against the workman, (ii) the complaints made against the workman, (iii) the facts with regard to receipt No. 89, or the enquiry conducted in this regard. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly recorded the findings against the petitioner in favour of the workman. 8. Vide order dated 8.8.2011, the learned Tribunal nad decided the preliminary issue and concluded that the depa tmental enquiry conducted by the management was neither proper nor legal. The petitioner failed to challenge the said order, and it attained finality. 9. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereyby dismissed. No order as to costs. " 5 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned judgment/order dated 29.08.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the Learned Single Bench failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and ignored the material fact that the respondent was a habitual absentee and did not maintain discipline in service. 8. It is further submitted that the respondent, in his application before the learned CGIT, could not point out any defect in the enquiry proceedings nor establish that any prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of documents. The Anding of the CGIT dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P/2), armed by the Learned Single Bench, thus su?ers from perversity and non-application of mind. Counsel further submits that the grant of 40% back wages is unsustainable, as the respondent workman never pleaded or proved that he remained unemployed during the intervening period. The learned CGIT as well as the Single Bench failed to consider the settled law on this aspect. It is lastly urged that both the forums overlooked the seriousness of the charges proved against the respondent after due enquiry, and therefore, the order of termination was fully justiAed and ought to have been 6 upheld. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent oppose the submission made by counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant and contended that the learned tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge rightly recorded the Andings against the writ petitioner and in favour of the workman. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire record, this Court Ands no inArmity or illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, upon detailed appreciation of the material on record, has categorically held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent-workman was neither proper nor legal. The said Anding on the preliminary issue was never challenged by the appellant and, therefore, attained Anality. 12. In the absence of any challenge to the said Anding, the learned Tribunal was justiAed in proceeding to adjudicate the claim on merits and in granting the relief of reinstatement with partial 7 back wages. The learned Single Judge, while arming the Andings of the Tribunal, has rightly observed that the management failed to establish the charges by leading cogent and convincing evidence before the Tribunal. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant are wholly untenable, as the same merely seek to re-agitate factual issues which have been thoroughly examined by both the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. No error, much less any perversity, is found in the reasoning or conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge su?ers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we And that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 14. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib