1 2025:CGHC:54309-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 775 of 2025 Ganesh Ram S/o Late Shri Narayan Aged About 61 Years (Wrongly Mentioned 43 Years), Posted as Master Winder ELR Shop, Central Workshop S.E.C.L. Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Chairman - Cum - Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Personnel/ Administration South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. General Manager (Mining) Central Workshop South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 4. Area Personnel Manager Central Stores South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.07 16:12:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6707 of 2018 (Ganesh Ram vs. Chairman-cum- Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant was initially appointed as a General Mazdoor Category-I (Winder) in the Central Workshop, SECL, Korba. Considering his 3 satisfactory service record, he was successively promoted to General Mazdoor Category-II, thereafter to Helper Grade-C, Fitter Group-D, Group-C in 2003, Group-B through departmental promotion, and ultimately to Group-A where he served as Master Armature Winder in the Central Workshop, SECL, Korba (C.G.). The appellant discharged his duties efficiently and without any adverse remark or stigma throughout his service career and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation from the said post. 5. It is further submitted that on 18.04.2014 at about 11:50 a.m., while discharging his duties, and on the instruction of his superior officer Mr. Rao, the appellant proceeded from the ELR Shop to the Machine Shop to cut a transformer connection plate. However, upon reaching the Machine Shop around 12:00 noon, he found that the work was temporarily halted due to the lunch break. Consequently, he kept the said copper transformer connection plate weighing approximately 1 kg in his motorcycle’s dickey and proceeded for lunch. When he reached the main gate, he handed over the copper plate to the security guard. It is contended that due to personal enmity and mala fide intention, the said security guard falsely alleged that the copper plate was found in the appellant’s motorcycle dickey and treated it as a stolen article. The article was seized by the security personnel, and thereafter, the appellant was placed under suspension and served with a charge sheet alleging theft. 6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the appellant duly 4 filed his explanation to the charge of alleged theft, reiterating that he was carrying the transformer connection plate within the premises as part of his official duty and had no intention to remove it from the workplace. Despite this, and though his suspension was later revoked, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental inquiry without considering his explanation and ultimately imposed a disproportionate punishment of reduction by eleven lower stages in time scale vide order dated 11.09.2014. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by a non-speaking order dated 14/16.07.2018, confirming the punishment without appreciating the facts and grounds raised by the appellant. 7. Being aggrieved by the said orders dated 11.09.2014 and 14/16.07.2018, the appellant preferred WPS No. 6707 of 2018 before the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the grounds that (i) the allegation of theft was not established, as the appellant was merely carrying the plate from one section to another within the same premises as part of his duty, and therefore, there was no dishonest intention or mens rea to commit theft; and (ii) even if the alleged act is admitted, the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct, contrary to the doctrine of proportionality laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Notice was issued to the respondents on 28.08.2019, yet no reply was filed even after about seven years. However, when the matter was listed again on 27.06.2025, the learned Single Judge, without calling for a reply under Rule 48 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007 and without due consideration of 5 the doctrine of proportionality, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, and the findings and punishment warrant no interference. 9. It is noted that the appellant did not specifically raise any plea regarding violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no averment that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, that relevant documents were withheld, or that the inquiry report was not furnished to him. The only ground urged is that he was carrying the copper transformer connection plate weighing 1 kg from one workshop to another for cutting, as part of his official duty. 10. The documents annexed to the writ petition indicate that the said copper plate was seized from the appellant’s possession, and he could not satisfactorily justify its possession. It further appears that a full- fledged departmental inquiry was conducted in which the appellant participated, and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the material on record, imposed the penalty in question. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, has categorically held that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the competent authority in a departmental inquiry 6 unless the same are perverse, based on no evidence, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process, not the decision itself. 12. In the present case, the appellant has not raised any ground alleging procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or incompetency of the disciplinary or appellate authorities. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Gunasekaran (supra) and having regard to the limited scope of judicial review in matters of departmental inquiry, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appeal. The penalty imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, particularly when the charge was found proved after due inquiry. 14. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan