Chattisgarh High Court
Babulal Pachouri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:15369
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5972 of 2019
Order Reserved on : 06.03.2025
Order Pronounced on : 02.04.2025
• Babulal Pachouri, S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad Pachouri, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Shivaji Mohalla, Mihouna, District Bhind, Madhya
Pradesh.
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director, Directorate Agriculture Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Joint Director, Office Of Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur, Division
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Director, Directorate, Farmer Welfare And Agriculture Development,
Bhopal Madhya Pradesh.
... Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
For State/respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, G.A.
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
C A V Order
1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the
matter is heard finally.
2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated
15.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.4/Director, Directorate, Farmer
Welfare & Agriculture Development Bhopal (M.P.), whereby the appeal of
the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that the petitioner was
appointed as surveyor in the Department of Agriculture in the year 1982
and was posted at Sarangarh, District Raigarh (M.P. / now C.G.).
Subsequently, on 06.02.1985, the Joint Director Bilaspur issued an order of
suspension of the petitioner on the ground that he had produced forged
certificate of passing Higher Secondary School Examination in the year
1981 showing his date of birth as 05.07.1960 instead of 02.05.1949, but
since no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner within 45 days of the
suspension, the Joint Director vide order dated 01.04.1985 revoked the
order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner. On 01.04.1985 itself, the
Joint Director issued another order again, suspending the petitioner and
forwarded the charge sheet, i.e., article of charge dated 28.03.1985,
statement of imputations of misconduct and list of documents in support of
the charge and the same were received by the petitioner on 04.04.1985.
The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement within 15 days
thereof, which was filed by the petitioner, deny charges levelled against
him. On 26.06.1985, the Joint Director issued an order appointing himself
3
as an Enquiry Officer and one Mr. C.J. Choithani as Presenting Officer and
the notice was issued to the petitioner to attend the departmental enquiry,
which was fixed for five times and the same was attended by the petitioner.
On 15.01.1987, the Joint Director revoked the order of suspension and
reinstated the petitioner in service vide order dated 15.01.1987.
Subsequently, in enquiry report, the petitioner was held guilty and vide
order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner was removed from
his service. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner was alleged to
have committed murder of Mahesh and Jasram, after granting bail in that
case, he tried to report his duty in the department in the year 1992, but he
was not allowed to join as he was already removed from service. On
12.10.1992, the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 15.09.1989
before the Director of Agriculture Bhopal, but vide order dated 26.07.1994
(Annexure P-12), the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Thereafter the petitioner filed OA No.2189/1995 before the State
Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur and after bifurcation of the State of
Chhattisgarh, the said application was transferred before this Court and re-
registered as WPS No.4785/2008. The said writ petition was allowed by this
Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-13) and the matter was
remitted back to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal afresh
and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, petitioner submitted
his appeal / representation before the appellate authority and vide order
dated 05.11.2018, the appeal of the petitioner was again dismissed.
Thereafter, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.66/2019 before this Court
on the ground that the petitioner’s appeal has again been dismissed by
non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Thereafter, appeal was again heard
by respondent No.4 and again dismissed vide impugned order dated
4
15.03.2019, which was served to the petitioner vide covering memo
(Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed
by the respondent No.4 as well as the order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure-
P/10) passed by the respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only charge
levelled against the petitioner was that he had filed two marks sheets of
Higher Secondary (Class 11th ) ‘1st mark sheet’ of Higher Secondary
Examination of the year 1969-70, in which, his date of birth is mentioned as
02.05.1949. Subsequently, the petitioner again obtained Transfer Certificate
of Class-10th and participated in Higher Secondary Examination in the
year 1980-81 and obtained ‘2nd mark sheet’ of Higher Secondary
Examination of the year 1981, in which, his date of birth is shown as
05.07.1960, but Enquiry Report does not show that said two certificates of
passing Higher Secondary by the petitioner have been proved, rather only
on the basis of memo dated 03.12.1984 received from Project Officer,
Denada Health Protection Project District Bhind (M.P.), date of birth of
petitioner has been held to be as 02.05.1949, but no mark sheet of
petitioner of passing of Higher Secondary in the year 1969-70 has been
proved. He further submits that petitioner had participated only once in the
Examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate in the year 1981 and in
that mark sheet his date of birth is mentioned as 05.07.1960. As per the
enquiry report, information was also obtained from the Board of Secondary
Education Bhopal, who had informed that one Babulal Pachouri, S/o
Dwarika Prasad Pachouri had participated as private student in the Higher
Secondary School Examination in the year 1971 and as per the record,
date of birth of Babulal Pachouri was mentioned as 02.05.1949. Further, in
5
the year 1981, Babulal Pachouri, S/o Dwarika Prasad Pachouri was
participated as regular student in the Examination of Higher Secondary
School Certificate and as per record his date of birth was 05.07.1960. He
would further submitted that the Enquiry Report itself shows that Enquiry
Officer and even Board of Secondary Education Bhopal (M.P.) could not
have ascertained the fact that students appeared in the year 1971 & 1981
in the Higher Secondary Examinations are one and the same. It is further
submitted that in departmental enquiry, petitioner has categorically stated in
his reply, that he had participated in Examination of 11th Class only at once
in the year 1981. He has further clearly stated that when he was working in
Denada Project of Health Department, at that time he had not filed any
educational certificate, as such, charge levelled against him is false,
despite that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Enquiry Officer
has held charge proved merely on the basis of two vague documents, that
too, the same have not been proved by calling its issuing authorities or by
filing and proving said two marks sheets of Higher Secondary of the
petitioner. Thus, petitioner has been held guilty without any lawful evidence,
which cannot be relied upon and have been terminated illegally, therefore, it
is bad in law. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National
Bank & Others1, in support of his submission.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short ‘CCA Rules’) has
not been followed at all, as no departmental witnesses have been
examined to prove the charges and documents relied upon have not been
1 (2009) 2 SCC 570
6
proved in accordance with law. Because of non-examining of any
departmental witness, particularly in respect of those documents, which
have been relied upon, petitioner has been deprived of cross-examination
of those witnesses of documents relied by the Enquiry Officer. Thus,
principle of natural justice has not been followed. He further submitted that
paragraph 7 of the enquiry report shows that criminal case under Section
420 of IPC was lodged against the petitioner at police station Sarangarh,
District Raigarh (C.G.), but in that case closure report was filed by the
police finding therein that case is not fit to be charge sheeted. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide order dated 20.08.2018
passed by this Court in WPS No.4785/2008, matter was remitted back to
the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal as per the provisions of
Rule 27 of the CCA Rules, but appellate authority without considering the
appeal in accordance with aforesaid rule vide impugned order Annexure-
P/1 only referring the contents of enquiry report has mechanically
dismissed the appeal without application of mind. Hence, he prays that
petition may be allowed and relief sought for by the petitioner may be
granted to him.
6. State has filed its reply stating inter alia, that after service of
charge sheet and enclosures, petitioner had filed his reply and participated
in the departmental enquiry proceeding. Allegation levelled against the
petitioner was that he obtained the forged certificates of passing Higher
Secondary Examination in the year 1981 showing his date of birth as
05.07.1960, whereas in certificate of passing of Examination in the year
1970-71, his date of birth is mentioned as 02.05.1949. Learned counsel for
the State referring to its reply would submit that in departmental enquiry, on
the basis of documentary evidence collected in respect of the charges,
7
particularly documents received from the Project Officer, Denada Health
Project, District Bhind (M.P.), it was stated that as per the Higher Secondary
marks sheet of the petitioner, he passed the said Examination in the year
1971 and as per that marks sheet his date of birth was 02.05.1949. Board
of Secondary Education Bhopal (M.P.) had also informed vide
communication dated 07.01.1985 that a person Babulal Pachouri, S/o
Dwarika Prasad Pachouri has participated in the Higher Secondary
Examination for the first time in the year 1971 and for the second time in
the year 1981 and as per their record, date of birth of Babulal Pachouri, S/o
Dwarika Prasad Pachouri was mentioned as 02.05.1949 and 05.07.1960,
respectively. He further submitted that on the basis of documentary
evidence, Enquiry Officer held guilty to the petitioner forging marks sheets
of passing of Higher Secondary Examination mentioning wrong date of
birth. Thus, petitioner has obtained government employment on the basis of
forged document, which has been held proved by the documentary
evidence, therefore, he prayed that instant petition may be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record along with original record of departmental
enquiry proceeding submitted by the government advocate, with utmost
circumspection.
8. In instant departmental enquiry proceeding, charge levelled
against the petitioner is that in the year 1981-82, he obtained service to the
post of Surveyor (Trainee) in the Agriculture Department of State of Madhya
Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) and got posted in the office of Assistant Soil
Conservation officer, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, M.P. (now C.G.) on the
basis of forged mark-sheet of Higher Secondary of the year 1981, in which
8
his date of birth was mentioned as “05.7.1960” whereas he has already
obtained mark-sheet passing Higher Secondary Examination Certificate in
the year 1971, in which, his date of birth was mentioned as “02.5.1949”
and thereby he deceived the officials of State of Madhya Pradesh (Now
Chhattisgarh).
9. During course of submission, learned counsel appearing for
the State produced original record of enquiry proceedings. After perusal of
original record, when specific question was posed by the Court to the State
counsel, as to whether in departmental enquiry proceeding, any
departmental witnesses were examined and whether issuing authority of
those documents i.e. communication of Project Officer, Denada Health
Protection Project, District Bhind (M.P.), and Assistant Secretary, Board of
Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, on the basis of which,
Enquiry Officer has held guilty to the petitioner, have been examined,
learned State counsel submitted that neither aforesaid documents have
been proved by examining issuing authorities nor those documents have
been proved on the basis of original records.
10. As per Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1966, while proving charge of
misconduct levelled against the delinquent employee, if the same has been
denied by him, the Department will have to prove the charge / misconduct
by adducing / presenting evidence. Relevant provisions of Rule 14 of the
CCA Rules, 1966 are as under :-
“Rule 14. (14) – Appearance of prosecution evidence and
witnesses
14. (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral
and documentary evidence by which the articles of
charge are proposed to be proved shall be
9produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary
authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or
on behalf of the Officer and may be cross-
examined by or on behalf of the Government
servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to
re-examine the witnesses on any points on which
they have been cross-examined but not on any
new matter, without the leave of the inquiring
authority. The inquiring authority may also put such
questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
“Rule 14. (15) – Production of additional documents and
witnesses.
14.(15) If it shall appear necessary before the
close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary
authority, the inquiring authority may, in its
discretion, allow the Presenting Officer, to produce
evidence not included in the list given to the
Government servant or may itself call for new
evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and
in such case the Government servant shall be
entitled to have if he demands it, a copy of the list
of further evidence proposed to be produced and
an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days
before the production of such new evidence,
exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to
which the enquiry is adjourned. The inquiring
authority shall give the Government servant an
opportunity of inspecting such documents before
10they are taken on the record. The inquiring
authority may also allow the Government servant
to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that
the production of such evidence is necessary in
the interest of justice.
Note. – New evidence shall not be permitted or
called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill
up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may
be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna
or defect in the evidence which has been produced
originally.
“Rule 14. (16) – Closure of prosecution case and
submission of statement of defence.
14.(16) When the case for the disciplinary authority
is closed, the Government servant shall be
required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as
he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall
be recorded and the Government servant shall be
required to sign the record, in their case, a copy of
the statement of defence shall be given to the
Presenting Officer, if any, appointed.
“Rule 14. (17) – Production of defence evidence and
witnesses
14 (17) The evidence on behalf of the Government
servant shall then be produced. The Government
servant may examine himself in his own behalf if
he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the
Government servant shall then be examined and
shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination
and examination by the inquiring authority
11according to the provisions applicable to the
witnesses for the disciplinary authority.”
11. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that, to prove the
charge / misconduct, the evidence ought to have adduced by the
Department / Disciplinary Authority and, thereafter delinquent employee
shall produce his witness in his defence.
12. Learned Division Bench of the M.P. High Court in the matter of
Union of India and another v. C.P. Singh 2, taking into consideration the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of D.K. Bharadwaj v.
Union of India 3 and Food Corporation of India v. A. Prahalada Rao 4,
summarised the legal position for imposing penalty to be adopted in a
departmental enquiry proceedings in paragraph 16, which reads thus :-
“16. The position as can be gathered from the
Rules and the aforesaid decisions can be
summarised thus:
(i) In a summary inquiry, a show cause notice is
issued informing the employee about the proposal
to take disciplinary action against him and of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on
which such action is proposed to be taken. The
employee is given an opportunity of making a
representation against the proposal. The
Disciplinary Authority considers the records and
the representation and records of findings on each
of the imputations of misconduct.
(ii) In a regular inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority
draws up the articles of charge and it is served on2 2004 (II) MPJR 252
3 (2001) 9 SCC 180
4 (2001) 1 SCC 165
12the employee with a statement of imputation of
misconduct, list of witnesses and list of documents
relied on by the Department. The Disciplinary
Authority calls upon the employee to submit his
defence in writing. On considering the defence; the
Disciplinary Authority considers the same and
decides whether the inquiry should be proceeded
with, or the charges are to be dropped. If he
decides to proceed with the enquiry, normally an
Inquiring Authority is appointed unless he decides
to hold the inquiry himself. A Presenting Officer is
appointed to present the case. The employee is
permitted to take the assistance of a co-employee
or others as provided in the rules. An inquiry is
held where the evidence is recorded in the
presence of the employee. The employee is
permitted to inspect the documents relied upon by
the employer. The employee is also permitted to
call for other documents in the possession of the
Management which are in his favour. The
delinquent employee is given an opportunity to
rebut the evidence of the management by cross-
examining the management witnesses and by
producing his evidence both documentary and
oral. Arguments-written and/or oral, are
received/heard. The delinquent employee is given
full opportunity to put forth his case. Thereafter the
Inquiring Authority submits his report. The copy of
the report is furnished to the employee and his
representation is received. Thereafter the
Disciplinary Authority considers all the material and
passes appropriate orders. The detailed procedure
for such inquiries is contained in sub-rules (6) to
(25) of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1968 corresponding to sub-rules
(3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
13
(CCA) Rules, 1965 and M.P. Civil Services (CCA)
Rules, 1966.
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) xxx xxx xxx
(v) xxx xxx xxx
(vi) xxx xxx xxx
13. Thus, as per sub-Clause 14, 15, 16 & 17 of Rule 14 of CCA
Rules, 1966 and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court with regard to
Departmental Enquiry proceedings, if delinquent employee denied the
charges levelled against him, then the Department ought to have proved
the charges / misconduct by adducing oral / documentary evidence by
affording due opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine
the departmental witnesses. But, in instant case, perusal of enquiry
report and original record of enquiry proceedings shows that it was fixed
for hearing four times i.e. on 22.07.1985, 01.08.1985, 26.08.1985 and
01.10.1985. It is also evident from the enquiry report that, before
examining the departmental witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of petitioner/delinquent employee was recorded and
thereafter, presenting officer filed an application to the effect that
Department will examine two witnesses namely Mahesh Chandra
Sharma, who made complaint against the petitioner and Project Officer,
Denada Health Protection Project, District Bhind (M.P.). Notices were
also sent to those departmental witnesses, but they did not appear before
the Enquiry Officer, as such, they could not have been examined by the
Department. Thereafter, enquiry report was prepared by the Enquiry
Officer merely on the basis of two documents i.e. communication dated
14
03.12.1984 sent by Project Officer, Denada Health Protection Project,
District Bhind (M.P.), wherein it was stated that as per mark-sheet of the
year 1971 about passing Higher Secondary Examination, his date of birth
was “02.05.1949” and second document is a communication (Xerox
copy) dated 07.01.1985 sent by Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary
Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, whereby it was informed that a
person namely Babulal Pachouri, S/o. Shri Dwarika Prasad Pachouri
entered in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1971 as
private student and as per record, his date of birth was “02.05.1949” and
in the year 1981, a person namely Babulal Pachouri, S/o. Shri Dwarika
Prasad Pachouri entered into Higher Secondary School Certificate
Examination, 1981 from Ashok Higher Secondary School, Badokhadi,
District Bhind (M.P.) and as per record, his date of birth was “05.07.1960”.
But, these two documents have not been proved by the Department
neither by examining its issuing authority nor by calling original record
pertaining to aforesaid two documents.
14. In defence submitted by the petitioner in writing before
disciplinary authority / Enquiry Officer, which is part of original record of
enquiry proceeding, he has categorically stated that he has participated
only at once in the year 1981 in the examination of Higher Secondary
School Certificate and he has never appeared in aforesaid examination in
the year 1969-70. Department has also not proved mark-sheet of
petitioner of the year 1971 passing Higher Secondary Examination in the
year 1969-70. Thus, it is clear that the Department has held proved
charge / misconduct levelled against the petitioner, only on the basis of
aforesaid two communications.
15
15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Moni Shankar v. Union
of India5 has held in paragraph 17 as under :-
“17. ………………….. The departmental
proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the
provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable
in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice
are required to be complied with. The Court
exercising power of judicial review are entitled to
consider as to whether while inferring commission
of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer
relevant piece of evidence has been taken into
consideration and irrelevant facts have been
excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be
based on evidence which meet the requirements
of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled
to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that
the evidence adduced by the department, even if
it is taken on its face value to be correct in its
entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof,
namely preponderance of probability. If on such
evidences, the test of the doctrine of
proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal
was within its domain to interfere. We must place
on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is
giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.”
16. Further in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.6, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
“26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and
consequently the Division Bench of the High Court
did not pose unto themselves the correct question.
The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite
limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to
5 2008 (3) SCC 484
6 (2006) 4 SCC 713
16interfere in a case where the report of the Enquiry
Officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a
delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ
court, in the event the findings arrived at in the
departmental proceedings are questioned before it
should keep in mind the following: (1) the enquiry
officer is not permitted to collect any material from
outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry.
[See State of Assam & Anr. V. Mahendra Kumar Das &
Ors.[ (1970) 1 SCC 709 : AIR 1970 SC 1255] (2) In
a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a
part of the principles of natural justice [See Khem
Chand V. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300 and
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3
SCC 775]. (3) Exercise of discretionary power
involve two elements (i) Objective and (ii)
subjective and existence of the exercise of an
objective element is a condition precedent for
exercise of the subjective element. [See K.L.
Tripathi V. State of Bank of India & Ors. [ (1984) 1
SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273]. (4) It is not possible to
lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural
justice which depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case but the concept of fair
play in action is the basis. [See Sawai Singh V. State
of Rajasthan [ AIR 1986 SC 995] (5) The enquiry
officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges
and any punishment imposed on the basis of a
finding which was not the subject matter of the
charges is wholly illegal. [See Director (Inspection
& quality Control) Export Inspection Council of
India & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Kumar Mitra & Ors. [ 1987
(2) CLJ 344]. (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot
take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry.
The writ court is entitled to interfere with the
findings of the fact of any tribunal or authority in
17
certain circumstances. [See Central Bank of India
Ltd. V. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983,
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and
Others, (1999) 2 SCC 10].
17. Reverting into the facts of instant case, as has been stated in
preceding paragraph that Department / Presenting Officer had proposed to
examine two witnesses to prove the charge / misconduct levelled against
the petitioner, but neither those witnesses have been examined nor those
two documents, based on which, charge / misconduct has been held proved
by the Enquiry Officer, have been proved by the Department neither by
examining issuing authority of those two communications nor by calling
original record. As such, the petitioner has been afforded due opportunity to
cross-examine the issuing authority of those documents, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be held guilty only on the basis of those two documents,
which have not been proved in accordance with law.
18. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted in a departmental
enquiry proceedings on the ground that he secured employment on the
basis of fake mark-sheet of Higher Secondary Examination of the year
1981, as such, he cheated the government official. In this regard, written
compliant dated 14.05.1985 was made by the Joint Director, Agriculture,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (M.P.) {Now C.G.} to the Superintendent of
Police, Raigarh for registering FIR against the petitioner under Section 420
of the IPC. But vide communication dated 06.06.1986, Superintendent of
Police, Raigarh had informed the Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur that
the case was not found to be charge-sheeted, therefore, “closure” has been
proposed on 18.10.1985. Aforesaid two documents are also enclosed with
the original record of disciplinary proceedings, which has also been
observed by the Enquiry Officer in an enquiry report.
18
19. It is also apt to be noted here that, though communication dated
07.01.1985 made by Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education,
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has not been proved by the Department, despite
that perusal of contents of that document shows that the Board itself could
not have ascertained the fact that person namely Babulal Pachouri, S/o Shri
Dwarka Prasad Pachouri entered into the examination of Higher Secondary
in the year 1971 and 1981 was one and same person. This fact has also
been observed by the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry
proceedings. Despite all these facts, enquiry officer has held guilty to the
petitioner in the case of no evidence ‘at all’.
20. In view of above discussion, it is abundantly clear that vide
impugned enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has held guilty to the petitioner
on the basis of no evidence and only relying invalid documents, which have
not been proved by the Department. Therefore, the enquiry report suffers
from complete perversity and illegality. But appellate authority without
considering aforesaid facts and without applying its mind and dehoring the
provisions contained in Rule 27 of the CCA Rules, 1966 has mechanically
upheld the impugned enquriry report holding guilty to the petitioner for the
said misconduct whereas, it is incumbent on the appellate authority to
consider whether the procedure laid down in the Rules has been complied
with in conducting the enquiry and if not complied with, whether such non-
compliance has resulted miscarriage of justice or violation of any of the
provisions of the Constitution.
21. It is unfortunate that the appellate authority has lost sight of
those aspects, which have been observed hereinabove while considering
the appeal, therefore, Enquiry Report as well as order passed in appeal by
19
the appellate authority, being devoid of substance, are liable to be
quashed/set aside.
22. Consequently, instant writ petition is allowed. Enquiry report
filed against the petitioner and the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the
appellate authority / respondent No. 4 rejecting appeal, which was
communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P-1, are held to be bad in
law, as such, the same are quashed / set aside.
23. Resultantly, impugned order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure P-
10) passed by respondent No. 3 terminating the services of the petitioner is
also set aside/quashed.
24. So far as re-instatement of petitioner in service is concerned,
he is out of service from 14.03.1987 i.e. date of his termination. As per the
record, his date of birth is 05.07.1960, thus, he has crossed the age of
superannuation. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner that
after termination of his service, he was not engaged in any gainful work /
employment, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner
is not entitled for backwages on the principle of ‘no work no pay’, rather
since termination of his service was illegal, therefore, for pensionary
benefits, the respondents authorities are directed to re-instate him in service
notionally. Since the petitioner has already crossed the age of
superannuation, therefore, he is entitled to get all the retiral dues after fixing
his pay notionally till the date of his retirement, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Deepti Jha/amit
Digitally signed
AMIT by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2025.04.03
11:05:47 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link