1 2025:CGHC:4567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 697 of 2025 1 - Kishore Kumar Patel S/o Shatbadan Lal Patel Aged About 38 Years At Present Posted And Working As Assistant Grade- I I I, Commissioner, Commercial Tax, G.S.T. Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Commissioner Office Of Commissioner Rajya Kar, Commercial Tax Department, G S T Building, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Special Commissioner Office Of Commissioner Rajya Kar, Commercial Tax Department, G S T Building, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 4 - Toran Lal Dhruv Special Commissioner, Office Of Commissioner Rajya Kar, Commercial Tax Department, G S T Building, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan and Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocates For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Pratik Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice of initiation of departmental inquiry dated 14-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 without properly taking into consideration the Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.14 17:01:02 +0530 2 reply of petitioner to the show cause notice and also by neglecting the documents of petitioner, which has been submitted by him at the time of his appointment and also by neglecting the verification report, which has been submitted by the Education Department in respect of the mark sheet of petitioner, the respondent department is acting in influence of respondent No.4, who is trying to take personal revenge against the petitioner, have issued impugned notice of initiation of departmental inquiry dated 14-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) against him and in which it is stated that the mark sheet of Class-8th is found forged and instructed the petitioner to file his reply within 21 days or the action will be taken against the petitioner. Hence this petition. 2. Following reliefs have been sought in this petition: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to quash/set-aside the impugned notice of initiation of departmental inquiry dated 14-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) and also the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 14-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) is against the law and therefore it is liable to be set-aside. Initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon vide order dated 30-09-2013 by the respondent No.3 and thereafter the respondent department have considered the merits of the petitioner for the appointment and all the documents, the respondent department considered the petitioner for 3 promotion and granted promotion to the petitioner vide order dated 02-06- 2022. After the promotion the petitioner joined the promotional and the petitioner was also doing his work sincerely in the department and about three months prior, the respondent No.4, who is the incharge officer of the office, where the petitioner is working called the petitioner and asked him whether he is properly trained to do computer work of the department, to which the petitioner made reply that he is getting training and within short period of time, he will get trained to do departmental computer work, by listening to the answer given by the petitioner, respondent No.4 got annoyed and said to the petitioner that if he is till today not well trained for computer work, then the respondent No.4 will take strict action against the petitioner and also threatened him that he will terminate the petitioner from his service and also very badly scolded the petitioner for which the petitioner intimated about the said incident to the Class-III Employees Union and its President. Since the behavior made by the respondent No.4 was very bad, that is why the petitioner was compelled to intimate about the said incident to Class-III Employees Union and the members of the said union came to the office of the respondent No.4 and met him and also requested him not to do this kind of act against the petitioner. The respondent No.4 got annoyed to the petitioner because he discussed the matter with the Class-III Employees Union and threatened the petitioner that he will terminate the petitioner from his job by initiating inquiry against him in any manner and he will not forgive the petitioner and after that one show cause notice was given to the petitioner and in which it was stated by the respondent No.4 that the petitioner may be suspended from his job and also directed to file his reply within five days to the respondent No.4 in respect of allegations made against him. The petitioner made his reply to the show cause notice and denied the adverse allegations against him and also explained 4 that he has not informed the media about the said incident and the news which was published by the media house is out of their own and the petitioner is not at all responsible for which the allegations have been leveled against the petitioner and the petitioner have also specifically submitted that by issuing the show cause notice the respondent No.4 is trying to take personal revenge against the petitioner. The respondent department did not take any action against the petitioner in respect of letter dated 24-10-2024, but the said letter is prove of the personal grievance which the respondent No.4 is having against the petitioner, cause of which the respondent No.4 initiated taking adverse action on the baseless ground against the petitioner and for doing this act the respondent No.4, even without any sufficient reasons with the intention of enmity with the petitioner initiated inquiry against the petitioner against his appointment in the respondent department and on 30-12-2024, one another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in which it was mentioned that the respondent department have received one complaint in which it is stated that for getting appointment in the respondent department, the petitioner has used the forged mark sheet of Class-8th and instructed the petitioner to file his reply and also instructed to submit the original mark sheet to the respondent department and also stated that if the reply not found satisfactory then the disciplinary action will be taken against the petitioner as per Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. The petitioner filed his reply on 01-01-2025 and specifically denied all the adverse allegations made against him and submitted that the baseless and false allegations have been made against him and the mark sheet of Class-8th which has been submitted by him is correct and is not forged and also submitted that the petitioner have submitted the mark sheet which have been issued by the Government Middle School Gorba, Block Bilaigarh, which is 5 correct and issued by the education department and the petitioner also submitted his original mark sheet to the respondent department on 06-01-2025 and the receiving of the same have also been made in the letter of reply submitted by the petitioner. During the verification of the Class-8th mark sheet of petitioner, the District Education Officer, Balodabazar submitted his report on 11-06-2014, in which the DEO have wrongly written in his report that the verification have been made in respect of mark sheet of Class-5, whereas the verification of Class-8th mark sheet was actually done by the District Education Officer and the Block Education Officer upon the query raised by the respondent department has written letter dated 12-12-2024 in which he has specifically mentioned that the verification has been made in relation to the mark sheet of Class-8th by the education department but by mistake in the report dated 11-06-2014, it was written that the verification have been made of Class-5th mark sheet. The respondent department by neglecting these all things, trying to make allegation upon the petitioner on false grounds and is trying to implicate the petitioner on false case and trying to prove the mark sheet of Class-8th of petitioner as forged, whereas the said mark sheet is a genuine mark sheet, which has been submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment which have been properly verified by the respondent department through the education department, in which the education department have also given its report that the mark sheet of petitioner is genuine. Without properly taking into consider the reply of petitioner to the show cause notice and also by neglecting the documents of petitioner, which has been submitted by him at the time of his appointment and also by neglecting the verification report, which has been submitted by the education department in respect of the mark sheet of petitioner, the respondent department is acting in influence of respondent No.4, who is trying to take 6 personal revenge against the petitioner, have issued to the petitioner, the impugned notice of initiation of departmental inquiry dated 14-01-2025 (Annexure P-1) against him and in which it is stated that the mark sheet of Class-8th which have been submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment is found forged as per the letter of District Education Officer, Balodabazar dated 17-12-2024 and instructed the petitioner to file his reply within 21 days or the action will be taken against the petitioner. Along with the impugned notice dated 14-01-2025 of initiation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner, the letter dated 17-12-2024 written by the District Education Officer, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh has also been supplied to the petitioner and along with that letter the mark sheet of petitioner and also the copy of relevant part of examination register of Government Middle School Gorba was also given to the petitioner, whereas by going through the said examination register, it could not be decided as of which year the said examination register belongs to and it is also important to mention here in the said examination register, the name of mother have also not been mentioned, whereas in the mark sheet of Class-8th, the name of father & mother of petitioner have been mentioned. This creates a doubt that whether this examination register is correct or forged. By looking to the all the documents, it could be very well understood that the respondent No.4 with personal interest have started taking action against the petitioner and with the malicious intention, have influenced the respondent department for initiation of departmental inquiry against him on false grounds, whereas the respondent department itself have made verification of all the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment from the education department itself and again for taking personal revenge, on the basis of some forged documents, the respondent department is trying to take action against the petitioner and 7 initiated the proceeding of departmental inquiry against the petitioner, which is arbitrary and illegal and also against. The petitioner in the year 2012, have made application to the Headmaster of Government Middle School Gorba, Block Bilaigarh from where the petitioner has passed the Class-8th Examination in the year-2009 and received the certified copy of complete examination register of Class-8th of the said school and in the said examination register, complete details which have been given in the mark sheet of petitioner is also recorded and the name of father & mother of petitioner is also recorded in the same examination register and at Sl.No.81, the name of petitioner is mentioned along with his role number and the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said examination have also been mentioned. This proves the fact that the petitioner have submitted the correct mark sheet of Class-8th at the time of his appointment, which have subsequently got verified by the respondent department from the education department and the appointment of petitioner have correctly been made. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has been issued show cause notice seeking his reply in order to contemplate departmental inquiry. The petitioner is having opportunity to give his reasonable explanation by way of filing reply and if the reply would be satisfactory the entire action would be closed as such the petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the record as well as the impugned show cause notice issued against the petitioner with circumspection. 8 6. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179 : AIR 1987 Supreme Court 943 a notice was issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause as to why order for forfeiture of his pension and gratuity be not issued in accordance with Article 470B of Civil Service Regulations as his services have not been wholly satisfactory. A reply was submitted but before the same could be examined or a decision could be taken by the Government he filed a writ petition. A learned Judge of the High Court quashed the notice on the sole ground that the show cause notice could not have been issued in view of the earlier proceedings. Their Lordships held: "The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not to have interfered with the show cause notice." 7. In Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Punjab, (1976) 3 SCC 361: AIR 1976 SC 1821 the disciplinary proceedings against an employee were dropped by an inquiry officer who was not competent to impose the punishment. The proceedings were revived by the Competent Officer issuing a fresh show cause notice against dismissal. A writ petition challenging the revival of proceedings was filed on the ground that the same was illegal and opposed to natural justice. Their Lordships held: 9 "The writ petition was in any case premature. No punitive action has yet been taken. It is difficult to state, apart from speculation, what the outcome of the proceedings will be. In case the appellant is punished, it is certainly open to him either to file an appeal as provided in the relevant rules or to take other action that he may be advised to resort to. It is not for us, at the moment, to consider whether a writ petition will lie or whether an industrial dispute should be raised or whether an appeal to the Competent Authority under the rules is the proper remedy, although these are issues which merit serious consideration. Even the question of jurisdiction to re-open what is claimed to be a closed enquiry will, and must, be considered by the Managing Director." 8. In Sahib Singh v. Delhi Administration, Delhi, 1984 LAB.I.C. 1509 (Delhi) notices to show cause against order of forfeiture of seniority and for reversion in one case and for the removal of the name of the employee from the promotion list in the other list were issued. Writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notices. The High Court of Delhi has held: "The matter was only at the initial stage of a show cause and the petitioners should have pursued the administrative remedies before the Department first but they have not done so. The show cause notices were issued to the petitioners before the writ petition was filed. Before rushing to the Court of law they ought to have shown cause to the authorities why the actions proposed in the show cause notice were not justified." 9. In CW 3346/92 titled as Inder Raj Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation, decided on 15.1.93, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has held: "When departmental proceedings have been initiated, it is desirable that they should be allowed to be continued and the proceedings must culminate in an order before recourse is taken to a Court of law. It is open to an officer who is being proceeded with to raise all contentions not been initiated validly and any contention raised by the employee concerned will have to be considered and decided by the Enquiry Officer and/or by 10 the Disciplinary Authority in any case. The grievance of the petitioner can only be if and when an adverse order imposing a penalty is passed against him. It is not proper that departmental proceedings should be interfered with prior to an order being passed by the Disciplinary Authority." 10. In Hari Chand v. D.T.C. (C.W. 3490/94), decided on 10.2.95 : 58 (1995) DLT 751 also a number of writ petitions challenging the notices to show cause against the proposed punishment were dismissed by another Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi observing: "If ultimately petitioners happened to meet with the punishment as anticipated by them they have the efficacious remedy to approach the Labour Court for improper and wrongful dismissal as claimed by them as they are workers. The question of punishment could be adequately raised in those proceedings. It is not possible for us to say at this stage whether the proposed punishment is proper or not. Thus we have come to the conclusion that Depot Manager is a Competent Authority on account of delegation of powers to him to take disciplinary action. Therefore, the notices issued by him are quite valid and legal and therefore we do not like to interfere with the same by exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus all these petitions are premature as there is no final decision regarding the disciplinary action taken against the present petitioners. It must be also further mentioned here that the petitioners are workmen and therefore even in case there happened to be unfortunate orders against them they will have to take the remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act before a Labour Court. Thus we hold that all these petitions are liable to be dismissed." 11. The Courts are averse to the idea of intercepting legal and departmental proceedings way between and at interlocutory stages. This is for several reasons. An efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by taking all the pleas during the proceedings themselves and there is no reason to apprehend why the authorities vested by law with the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings and take decisions therein would not act in accordance with law. Interference by the Courts stalls the progress of the 11 proceedings and by the time the petition comes to be decided, may be against the petitioner, the proceedings would have been unreasonably and irreparably delayed. May be that much of the evidence is already lost by the time the hearing in the proceedings would come to be resumed. Several officers associated with the case may have left the place on account of transfers or promotions or may not even be available as having retired. It is only in those rare cases where the impugned proceedings are patently incompetent or without jurisdiction and where the Court is convinced that continuance of such proceedings would amount to an illegality or art abuse of the process of law by itself, that the Court may show indulgence in exercise of its writ jurisdiction at interlocutory stage of departmental proceedings. 12. In the instant case, from perusal of the impugned notice itself, it seems that along with the show cause notice the petitioner has been supplied the charge- sheet along with the relevant documents. He is further given opportunity to inspect the documents if he wishes for the same. He is also given 10 days’ additional time for filing proper reply in this respect. From the perusal of aforesaid notice, it seems that the petitioner has rushed to this Court only on the basis of issuance of notice. The petitioner ought to have filed a reply before the authorities concerned giving explanation in respect of each of the charges levelled against him along with the documents which the petitioner wants to annex with the reply. He is also having opportunity to inspect the documents and the records in order to file proper reply. He has been given sufficient time to file reply, as such only against issuance of notice, it would not be appropriate to pass orders. The petitioner may file reply along with the documents and even if his reply is not being considered, he may file appropriate application before the appropriate authority, but, merely on the 12 basis of issuance of notice, the petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, in light of aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate reply after examining the records and the documents if any and if the petitioner seeks more time the authorities concerned are directed to give some more time to the petitioner which can be for a period of 15 more days as stated in the notice. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh