1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 760 of 2023 1 - A.C. Hatile S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Hatile, Aged About 62 Years Assistant Grade Ii (Retired) R/o 26/49 Laxmi Niwas, Friends Colony, Mova, District Raipur , Chhattisgarh. Pin 494001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Distric Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner, Department Enquiry, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records of this case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction quashing the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner on the grounds of extraordinary delay and initiated by the inquiry officer who was not authorised to initiate and proceed further with the departmental inquiry in the eyes of law. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order, or directionto the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner all the retiral dues including gratuity, arrears, benefit of 3rd pay scale and other consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners.” 2. Facts of the case, a projected in the petition, are that the petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Grade-II in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Mahasamund, retired on 31.10.2022, but long before his superannuation, he was issued a charge-sheet on 11.06.2018 alleging violation of Rule 21 of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 for selecting private agencies without following due procedure during 2010–11, despite a parallel departmental enquiry having been initiated against the then Assistant Commissioner on identical allegations. Although the petitioner submitted an interim reply on 04.07.2018 and repeatedly requested supply of 28 listed documents to enable him to file a final defence, the authorities never provided the documents, thereby violating Rule 14(4) of the CCA Rules, 1966. 3 Despite the absence of a written statement of defence, an Inquiry Officer was appointed on 12.12.2019 after an unexplained delay of 18 months, and although the petitioner was a Class III district- level employee whose disciplinary authority should have been a district-level officer, the charge-sheet was issued by the State- level authority, and contrary to Rule 18(1), separate charge-sheets were issued instead of a joint charge-sheet with the co-delinquent Assistant Commissioner. While the enquiry against the Assistant Commissioner concluded, the petitioner’s enquiry did not proceed, and he was later orally informed that the Commissioner could not continue his case as the petitioner was a Class III employee, following which he submitted several representations requesting closure of proceedings, all of which remained unanswered. Despite his retirement, he received a notice dated 09.11.2022 directing appearance in the enquiry, where he again objected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the 1984 GAD circular and highlighted persistent illegality, including non-supply of documents, improper disciplinary authority, and violation of mandatory procedure. Even after further representations dated 21.12.2022 and 23.12.2022, no corrective action was taken, and the petitioner continued to be paid only anticipatory pension under Rule 74 of the Pension Rules, 1976, though no dispute of pay fixation existed. Left with no remedy as the departmental enquiry was being conducted in violation of the CCA Rules, Pension Rules and government circulars, the petitioner approached this Court 4 challenging the continuation of the enquiry as arbitrary, illegal and procedurally flawed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actions and omissions of the respondent authorities are patently arbitrary, violative of service jurisprudence, the principles of natural justice, and infringe the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, as the departmental enquiry has been pursued for over 4½ years without supplying the essential documents forming the basis of the charges, thereby depriving the petitioner of any meaningful opportunity to file a proper defence, contrary to settled law that prejudice is presumed when mandatory procedural safeguards are breached. It is argued that the protracted and unexplained delay, despite repeated representations, squarely attracts the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Akhilesh Jha, Anant Kulkarni and followed by this Court in Sanjay Singh, where departmental proceedings were quashed for delay alone. Counsel further submits that the charge-sheet itself is void, having been issued by the State Government despite the petitioner being a District-level Class III employee whose disciplinary authority lies only with the District Officer, as per the decentralisation order dated 27.05.2000, and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under the 1984 GAD circular to conduct proceedings against a Class III employee, particularly when separate charge-sheets, not a joint charge-sheet, were issued though allegations were common with the Assistant 5 Commissioner whose enquiry has already been concluded. Moreover, despite clear directions from Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.3 never supplied the 28 listed documents, indicating that the charge-sheet may have been issued without any material, and the continued refusal to provide documents, accept representations, or record them in the enquiry proceedings reflects malice and procedural illegality. It is emphasised that even after retirement on 30.10.2022, the petitioner was subjected to continuation of the defective enquiry, contrary to pension rules, government circulars mandating completion of enquiries and pension-related formalities well before retirement, and despite his severe financial hardship caused by grant of only anticipatory pension under Rule 74. Counsel contends that throughout the process the petitioner never caused delay and that the entire prejudice suffered by him arises solely from the respondents’ failure to commence or conduct the enquiry in accordance with law, rendering the continuation of the proceedings unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that all allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents are categorically and vehemently denied, as the petitioner has attempted to distort facts to evade responsibility in a duly instituted departmental enquiry. It is asserted that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and other delinquents are lawfully pending at the 6 State level before the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, and that repeated communications were issued to the petitioner directing him to appear, cooperate, and provide necessary assistance to the Inquiry Officer, yet he consistently failed to participate, thereby causing the delay in conclusion of the enquiry. The State Counsel further submits that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Mahasamund had specifically directed the petitioner on 03.10.2022 to produce relevant original documents essential for the enquiry, but despite receipt of the letter, the petitioner has not furnished the required records, thereby obstructing the enquiry process. It is emphasised that the enquiry could not be concluded solely due to the petitioner’s non- cooperation and not due to any lapse on the part of the authorities. It is submitted that upon the petitioner’s retirement on 31.10.2022, he has already been paid GIS and leave encashment, while his estimated pension has been provisionally fixed at Rs. 26,750/- per month in view of the pending enquiry. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceedings arising out of the same set of allegations, the other delinquent officials, who were similarly situated and charged on identical facts, have already been exonerated from all charges by the disciplinary authority. It is argued that there is no distinguishing feature between the case of the petitioner and that of the co-delinquents who have been absolved of liability. It is further submitted that the enquiry against 7 the petitioner could not be concluded solely because of the interim order of stay passed by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2023, by which further departmental proceedings against the petitioner were kept in abeyance. Counsel contends that the pendency of the present petition should not result in discriminatory treatment, especially when the co-delinquents have already been granted a clean chit. Placing reliance on the principle of parity, the petitioner, therefore, seeks similar relief and prays that he too be extended the benefit of exoneration, as the charges against all concerned arise from the same incident, are based on common evidence, and the competent authority has already found no misconduct in respect of others. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner could not be concluded for the sole reason that further proceedings were stayed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.02.2023. It is argued that the authorities were always ready and willing to proceed with the enquiry, and there is no lapse or inaction on their part. The pendency of the stay order has alone stalled the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. It is further contended that if the petitioner genuinely wishes to face the departmental enquiry and establish his innocence, the appropriate course would be to permit the disciplinary authority to resume and conclude the enquiry in accordance with law. 7. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the material 8 placed on record, and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the State, this Court is of the view that the core issue which requires consideration presently is not the merits of the departmental proceedings, but the fact that the enquiry against the petitioner could not be concluded owing to the interim stay granted by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2023. 8. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner has been repeatedly requesting supply of documents necessary for preparation of his defence, and non-supply of such documents has remained a persistent grievance. This Court finds that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2022, and the departmental enquiry initiated prior to his retirement is still pending. The allegations pertain to the period 2010–11, and the charge-sheet was issued in June 2018. It is also noted that against the similarly situated co- delinquents, who were proceeded against on identical allegations, the disciplinary authority has already concluded the proceedings and exonerated them. However, the enquiry against the petitioner could not be taken to its logical conclusion primarily due to the subsistence of the interim stay order. 9. In view of the aforesaid overall circumstances, and without commenting on the merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner or the legality of the initiation of the enquiry, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be best 9 served by directing the respondent authorities to complete the departmental enquiry within a fixed time-frame, ensuring full opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental enquiry against the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before proceeding further with the enquiry, the respondents shall supply to the petitioner all documents which he has been seeking for the purpose of preparing his defence. Such documents shall be supplied within a period of two weeks from today. Upon supply of the documents, the Inquiry Officer shall resume the enquiry and ensure that the same is completed by passing a reasoned order within the next 90 days. 11. The petitioner shall extend full cooperation for the early conclusion of the enquiry. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open to be adjudicated by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law. 12. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna