1 2026:CGHC:19438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 150 of 2025  Akshay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri M.R. Sharma Aged About 59 Years R/o H.No.-15 D, Cross Street-1, Sector-1, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, F.S.N.L. Bhawan, Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, Bhilai, Central Avenue, P.B. No.-37, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Deputy General Manager Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, F.S.N.L. Bhawan, Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, Bhilai, Central Avenue, P.B. No.-37, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Asst. General Manager Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, F.S.N.L. Bhawan, Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, Bhilai, Central Avenue, P.B. No.-37, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Aishwarya Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 27.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2018 (Annexure P-1) and impugned order dated 28/05/2018 (Annexure P-2) and the impugned judgment dated 03/01/2025 (Annexure P-3), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner along with adequate interest thereupon at such rate of interest to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner against the respondents including the costs of the petition under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was working under respondent-management since 1991 on the post of Senior Lancer/ Gas Cutter -I and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.12.2017. It was alleged that on 12.12.2017, petitioner was found unauthorisedly absent from his workplace NSB Yard at 8:15 pm during surprise inspection and he only arrived later in drunken state and was not in position to work. Further, he did not report for medical examination as directed and left his workplace before time without any reason or authorization. Departmental inquiry was contemplated according to the standing orders and article of charges was issued leveling following allegations against the petitioner:- 3 (I) Dishonesty in connection with company’s business. (ii) Drunkenness in the work premises. (iii) Disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors. (iv) Breach of standing orders. 3) Respondent-management appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Respondent-management examined its witnesses. Petitioner participated in the inquiry and thereafter, order of penalty of reduction of basic pay by eight stages in the timescale was inflicted by Asst. General Manager, I/c- Bhilai Unit vide order dated 31.3.2018. Thereafter, departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by Deputy General Manager vide order dated 28.5.2018. Subsequently, said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur. The reference was dismissed vide order dated 3.1.2025. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was within the company premises and he was working somewhere else on the date of incident therefore he could not report before the superior authorities and the allegation with regard to dishonesty in connection with company business appears to be erroneous. He further submits that respondent-management failed to prove that petitioner was in inebriated state at workplace as he could not be medically examined and petitioner never disobeyed the orders of superior authorities and there was no breach of 4 standing orders on the part of petitioner. He prays to set aside the order of penalty and the subsequent orders passed against the petitioner. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He submits that on 12.12.2017, petitioner was found missing from his place on work and he was found somewhere else in inebriated state and when he was asked for medical examination, he left the premises without performing the mandatory biometric out-punch. He further submits that petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental inquiry and petitioner never raised any objection in writing before the said authority ; respondent-management examined its witnesses and exhibited various documents and petitioner was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thus order of penalty was inflicted after following the principles of natural justice. He contends that departmental appeal as well as reference have been decided against the petitioner and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) Admittedly, petitioner was placed under suspension post incident vide order dated 13.12.2017. Departmental inquiry was contemplated against him and Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were appointed. Article of charges was served 5 to petitioner. Respondent-management examined Vivek Kumar Pandey (MW/1), P.K. Mohanty (MW/2), C.N. Jha (MW/3), Keshav Ram Sahu (MW/4), Mahendra Hembram (MW/5) and Mohd. Anis Rizvi (MW/6). These witnesses stated that petitioner was found absent from duties and later on he was found in intoxicated state The witnesses also stated that petitioner was not cooperating with the respondent-management and he fled the workplace instead of getting medically examined without recording a biometric exit. Petitioner participated in the departmental inquiry and after its conclusion, all the allegations mentioned in article of charges were found proved against the petitioner and order of penalty of reduction of basic pay by eight stages in the timescale was inflicted. 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus P. Gunasekaran1 while dealing with the scope of interference in service matters held as under :- 12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings. the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure 1. (2015) 2 SCC 610 6 prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings: (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case: (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13.Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be: (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 14.In one of the earliest decisions in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus: (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7.... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a court of 7 appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution." 9) Likewise, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus Datta Linga Toshatwad2 held that penalty inflicted in a departmental inquiry can be interfered by the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India if the order has been passed by an incompetent authority or if procedure to inflict the penalty has not been followed or if the 2. (2005) 13 SCC 709 8 penalty if disproportionate looking to the misconduct. 10) In view of the aforesaid legal positions established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very much clear that High Courts can only interfere in the matters of departmental inquiries exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the penalty shocks the conscience or the procedure prescribed under the rules have not been followed or the principles of natural justice have not been followed. 11) In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned penalty order was issued by an incompetent authority or was vitiated by any procedural irregularity under the Standing Orders. The defense predicated on the claim that the petitioner was present on the premises but engaged in alternative duties remains uncorroborated and constitutes a mere self-serving statement. 12) Consequently, in light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Management, the Appellate Authority, and the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court, the petitioner’s plea lacks merit and no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.29 14:00:26 +0530