1 2025:CGHC:55071-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 750 of 2025 V.K.Gupta S/o Late K.M. Gupta Aged About 79 Years Retired- Divisional Engineer (Civil), R/o K.E./30- New Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, H.S.C.L. Regd. Address 1, Shakespeare Sarani, 8th Floor Calcutta- 700071. 2 - General Manager, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And Dist. Durg M.P. (Now C.G.) 3 - The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Ward No. 2, Raipur Distt. Raipur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) 4 - Chairman Board Of Directors H.S.C.L. 1, Shakespeare Sarani 8th Floor Calcutta. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/11/2025 1 Heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. N.N.Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 2 Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2619/1997 by which the petition 昀椀led by the appellant/writ petitioner, has been dismissed. 3 The facts, in brief, as projected before the learned Single Judge is that the appellant was was appointed as Technical Assistant in Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited (for short, the HSCL) on 06.12.1972 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 23.05.1975. Again he was promoted on the post of Divisional Engineer on 14.12.1979 thereafter promoted on the post of Zonal Engineer on 03.10.1985. On 22.08.1989, o昀케cials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CBI), Special Police Establishment Ranchi, conducted a raid at the residential quarter of the appelant and registered Case No. RC 12(A)/89(R) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent thereto, a departmental charge-sheet dated 14.12.1989 was issued, containing charges identical to those in the criminal case pending before the Special Judge, Jabalpur (Annexure P/3 to the writ petition). The appellant requested the respondents for assistance of a legal practitioner to cross-examine the CBI o昀케cials which was declined. As per the appellant, during the enquiry, he was denied adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence, as his application 昀椀led before respondent No. 4 dated 01.12.1990 (Annexure P/5 to the writ petition) seeking permission to adduce evidence was rejected. The prosecution examined Shri S.K. Sharma, Inspector CBI Ranchi, and Shri P.C. Chaturvedi, A.M. (Viz) and these witnesses did not depose anything adverse against him. It was contended by the appellant that all movable and immovable properties seized during the raid were duly accounted for by him and his family members, who were regular income-tax assessees, supported by relevant documents. Thereafter, on 20/25.10.1994 (Annexure P-2 to the 3 writ petition) the respondent No. 1 issued a punishment letter and he was reverted to the lower post of Divisional Engineer and by the same order, he has been transferred from Bhilai Nagar to Panipat (U.P.), against which he preferred an appeal dated 08.12.1994 vide Annexure (Annexure P/14 to the writ petitioner) under the HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. He had earlier challenged the reversion order by 昀椀ling a writ petition bearing No. 3628/95, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, by order dated 04.12.1996, directed respondent No. 5 to decide the appeal within two months from the date of order. The review petition (MCC No. 52/1997) 昀椀led by respondent No. 1 was disposed of by order dated 14.02.1997. Thereafter, vide communication dated 08.05.1997 (Annexure P-15 to the writ petition), he was informed that his appeal had been rejected in the HSCL Board meeting held on 30.04.1997 (Annexure P-16 to the writ petition). 4 Challenging the aforesaid, the appellant 昀椀led writ petition being WP No.2619/1997 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.09.2025 placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nelson Motis v. Union of India {(1992) 4 SCC 711} and State of Karnataka v. Umesh {(2022) 6 SCC 563} wherein it has been held that the scope of criminal trial and departmental proceedings is distinct. The standard of proof in a departmental enquiry is distinct from that in criminal trial, the former being governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. 5 Mr. Dadariya, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 4 04.09.2025, dismissing the writ petition on the pretext that the appellant/petitioner was a昀昀orded adequate opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry and his witnesses were also examined and thereafter upon due consideration of the material on record, the punishment order dated 20.10.1994 was passed. In consequence thereof, the learned Single Judge Bench erroneously dismissed the writ petition, without appreciating pleadings made and the arguments advanced wherein it was speci昀椀cally brought to the notice of the Court the order of acquittal and the issue regarding the e昀昀ect of acquittal, ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in criminal case, on the order of punishment passed in departmental enquiry imposing major penalty. The learned Single Judge reasonably failed to appreciate that in the teeth of the 昀椀nding of the appellate Court i.e. Hon'ble High Court in criminal case, disciplinary proceedings and the punishment order passed thereupon cannot be allowed to stand as the charges are based on same set of facts and the material seized by the CBI o昀케cials. The learned Single Judge recorded perverse 昀椀nding that the appellant was permitted to adduce evidence and his witnesses were also examined, whereas the fact remains that appellant was not permitted to get the evidence of the defence witnesses recorded. Further, the learned Single Judge recorded perverse 昀椀nding without taking note of the legal position regarding the e昀昀ect of acquittal in criminal case over the disciplinary proceedings and the order passed thereupon as the 昀椀nding in a criminal case on the factual aspect always prevails over the order passed in the departmental enquiry, as the 昀椀nding arrived at in criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the learned Single Judge had also arrived at the perverse 昀椀nding that the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved totally ignoring the fact that the one of 5 the charge levelled against the appellant regarding failure to maintain absolute integrity was not found to be proved and had already been given go-by while passing the impugned punishment order. Under such situation the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges found proved against the appellant appreciating the reasonable arguments put forth by the appellant and the material placed therein the writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order giving perverse 昀椀nding. 6 On the other hand, Mr. N.N.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes this appeal and submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference stating that the appellant was permitted to adduce evidence, his witnesses were duly examined and considered and only thereafter, upon close scrutiny of the materials available on record, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment of reversion to the lower post. The principles of audi alteram partem has been duly followed in letter and spirit and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 7 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8 On the last date of hearing i.e. 16.10.2025, the learned counsel for the respondent had sought for time to 昀椀le a昀케davit stating as to whether all the properties held by the wife of the appellant were declared beyond time as per Rule 16(3) of the HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, or not. Pursuant to the said order, an a昀케davit has been 昀椀led by the Zonal Head, HSCL, Bhilai, stating that there is no separate document furnished by the appellant showing declaration of the 6 properties in the name of his wife beyond due time as asked by this Court. 9 There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that acquittal in criminal case does not ipso facto bar disciplinary proceedings as observed by the Apex Court in Nelson Motis (supra) and Umesh (supra) wherein it has been held that the scope of criminal trial and departmental proceedings are distinct and the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings, it is the preponderance of probabilities. However, it is also to be borne in mind that a delinquent has to be provided adequate opportunity of hearing to put forth his case. 10 From perusal of the documents available on record, it transpires that the the appellant was not permitted to get the evidence of the defence witnesses recorded. Infact, right to lead evidence in defence was closed which is evident from the order sheet dated 09.11.1990 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition). The appellant had made an application for leading evidence and had also proposed the names of the defence witness namely Smt A.D.Gupta (Mother-In-Law) and Smt Pratibha Gupta (wife) who were the main stake holder but the same was rejected. The movable and immovable property acquired by the family members were duly accounted and the statement showing computation of taxable income was also submitted by the appellant. The movable and immovable property owned and held by the appellant were duly accounted and declared and the properties in the name of family members were not purchased from his own sources, meaning thereby, that it was not owned or held by the appellant, so as to bring the same in the purview of 7 violation of Rule 16(3) of the Rules, 1978. Even otherwise there is no 昀椀nding that it is from own sources of the appellant. 11 It further transpires that the charges levelled against the appellant as per the charge sheet were under rule 4(1)(i)(ii) read with rule 16(3) of HSCL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 but were found to be proved only under rule 4(1)(ii) read with rule 16(3) of Rules 1978, thus the charge regarding failure to maintain absolute integrity had already been given a go by while passing the impugned punishment order. There was no charge of any misappropriation, embezzlement or loss to the respondent department and the charges levelled against the appellant are merely relating to procedural and technical lapses for which the impugned major punishment was not called for. 12 In view of the above submission, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justi昀椀ed in dismissing the writ petition, and as such, the writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in WP No. 2619/1997 stands quashed. The order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure P/1), 20/25.10.1994 (Annexure P/2) and the order dated 14.12.1989 (Annexure P/3), impugned in the writ petition also stand quashed. The appellant / writ petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential bene昀椀ts 昀氀owing from this judgment. 13 As a result, this appeal stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.14 15:50:08 +0530