NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 691 of 2021 Goverdhan Mourya S/o Kailash Chandra Mourya Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Waspani, Godiyapal, Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, Lalbag, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer Police Keshlur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned orders dated 21.01.2019 and 16.07.2018 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Constable with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.22 16:31:31 +0530 -2- 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Fact of the case which emerges from the pleadings are that the instant writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 27.01.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P/2) by which the respondent no. 3 has dismissed/ removed the petitioner from the post of Constable. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was posted as Constable No. 958 under the respondent no. 1 department. One Dhannur Rajit made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bastar alleging therein that the petitioner has obtained Rs. 80,000/- for providing job to his brother-in-law (Jeeja) namely Gote Baldev on the post of Jail Warden, but no such appointment was provided by the petitioner, therefore the complainant demanded the amount back, but he is avoiding to return the money. 4. On the basis of above complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur directed for conducting preliminary enquiry and preliminary enquiry report was submitted. On the basis of preliminary enquiry report, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. 5. The respondent no. 4 has conducted enquiry against the petitioner and upon completion of enquiry proceedings, the enquiry report was submitted before the respondent no. 3, who in turn, issued notice to the petitioner directing him to file explanation/ reply regarding findings of the departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed reply to the findings of departmental enquiry, but without considering the same, vide order dated 16.07.2018, the respondent no. 3 has dismissed/ removed the petitioner from the post of Constable. -3- 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2, who by order impugned, has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of dismissal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year 2005, the petitioner was appointed as Constable 958 under the respondent No.1 Department and the petitioner was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty with the satisfaction of the superior authorities without any stigma or complaint. The complaint was made by one Dhannur Ranjit before the respondent No.3. Inter-alia alleging that the petitioner has received Rs.80,000/- for providing the job for his brother-in-law namely - Gote Baldev on the post of Jail Warden. However no such appointment was provided by the petitioner. Therefore, the complainant demanded the amount back but the petitioner is avoiding to return the money. He further submits that on receipt of complaint, the Departmental Inquiry was conducted by the respondents and after completion of the Departmental Enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, imposed a punishment of removal from service vide order dated 16/07/2018 (Annexure P/2), that order was subject to challenge before the Appellate Authority ie. respondent No.2 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 21/01/2019 (Annexure P/1). He further submits that Departmental Enquiry was conducted without following the principal of natural justice. No proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defending himself, proper documents were not given. Even otherwise, the alleged amount of Rs.80,000/- was already returned by the petitioner to the complainant. This aspect of the matter has not been consider during the Departmental Enquiry and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 committed an error in passing the impugned Orders - Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2. Thus, the relief as claimed may be granted to the petitioner and petitioner may be reinstated in service with back wages. -4- 8. Per contra learned counsel for the State submits that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself. Specific charges were leveled against the petitioner and charge-sheet including the article of charges and details of the witnesses were supplied to the petitioner. He was given due opportunity to participate in the Departmental Enquiry, the witnesses examined in the Departmental Enquiry have been cross-examined by the petitioner, thus it cannot be said that Departmental Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. Apart from this he submits that petitioner has admitted the factum of receiving Rs.80,000/- from the complainant in his statement. All the aspects of the matter have been considered by the respondent No.3 while issuing the order - Annexure P/1 and all the grounds which was argued before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 has also been considered. Thus, the impugned orders do not require any interference and petition deserve to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10.The charge-sheet against the petitioner was served upon the petitioner. The charges are mentioned here-in-below:- “1. vkosnd Jh /kUuwj cdS;k ds Tkhtk Jh xksVs cynso dks tsy izgjh esa ukSdjh yxk nsus dk >klka ykyp nsdj 80000/- ekax dj voS/k :i ls 80000/- fy;k tkdj Hkz”V vkpj.k iznf’kZr dj iqfyl jsxqys’ku fu;e 3(1) (,d) (nks) (rhu) ds foijhr vkpj.k iznf’kZr djukA 2 iwoZ Eksa nh xbZ ltkvkss ,oa vkpj.k ds ,d izdj.k esa nh xbZ ltk rFkk Hkz”V vkpj.k ds ,d izdj.k esa vkjksi i= tkjh djus ds mijkURk Hkh vius drZO; ,oa vkpj.k edsa dksbZ lq/kkj ifjyf{kr u dj iqu+ Hkz”V vkpj.k dh iqujko`fr dj vius fu”Bk dks lafnX/k cuk dj iqfyl foHkkx TkSlh egdeasa dh lsok ds vk;ksX; cukukA 11. From perusal of documents appended with the writ petition, it appears that detailed Departmental Enquiry was conducted by the respondents. It -5- appears that evidence of the witnesses were also recorded and he was also permitted to cross examine the same. From the perusal of the record it also appears that during his statement in Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner has admitted the fact that he has received Rs.80,000/- from complainant - Dhannur Ranjit for providing a job to his brother-in-law - Gote Baldev, Jail Warden in the year 2011- 2012. It has been stated by him that he has returned the amount to him. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing by the respondent doesn’t appear to be correct. Apart from this, the Enquiry Report also indicates that detailed enquiry was conducted by examining the witnesses giving opportunity to cross-examining and thereafter, the said enquiry report was considered by the respondent No.3 while impugned order Annexure P/2 was passed. It has been further affirmed in the Appellate Order by respondent No.2. The scope of interference by a Court in a Departmental Enquiry is limited one. The Court should not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence presented before the Departmental Enquiry. 12.Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 in paragraph 23 as under :- “It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh's case, AIR 1963 SC 1909, that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction. I would -6- say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter. ” 13.Law in this regard is no longer res integra in case of General Manager (Appellate Authority), SBI V/s Ajai Kumar Shrivatava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 in paragraph 24, 27 and 28 have been held as under:- “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge -7- against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 14.Having thus considered the submissions made and also perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the charges against the petitioner has been duly proved by the respondents. The petitioner has also admitted the guilt. The allegation against the petitioner is serious one of receipt of certain amount which he has taken for providing job. The punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner considering the grave nature of charges cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge. 15.Thus, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition which is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 16.No Cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish