Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Banjare vs Registrar General Com Disciplinary … on 14 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6688 of 2017
1 -: Sanjay Kumar Banjare, aged about 37 years, S/o- Antram Banjare,
R/o- Krishna Nagar, Devrikhurd Bilaspur, Police Station- Torwa, Tahsil,
Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No.: 7869754790
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Registrar General, Cum Disciplinary Authority, Chhattisgarh High
Court Bilaspur Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil- Bilha, Civil &
Revenue District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. :- Not Known
2. Deputy Registrar, Cum Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court
Bilaspur Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil- Bilha, Civil & Revenue,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. :- Not Known
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal,
For respondents : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
14.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for entire records regarding present case from
respondent authority.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set-aside the order dated 13/10/2017 passed by
Hon’ble Chief Justice of this High Court (Annexure-
P/1) and further be pleased to set-aside the order
dated 11/01/2017 and 20/01/2017 passed by
respondent no. 1 (Annexure-P/2), is in the interest of
justice.
10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authority to reinstate to the
petitioner in his service with back wages.
10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
-2-
including award of the costs of the petition may be
given.”
2. Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was working in the post of Assistant
Grade-III (Photocopy Operator) under the control of respondent
No.1. He would further submit that the article of charge was issued
by respondent No.1 on 10.05.2013, where allegations were made
to the effect that the petitioner sent obscene messages to the
complainant through mobile phone. An FIR was also lodged
against the petitioner and during the course of the investigation,
the petitioner was arrested and mobile phone as well as SIM cards
were seized. FIR was registered for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 354D and 507 of
IPC and Sections 66A and 67 of the Information Technology Act at
Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur. The petitioner was placed under
suspension. He would further submit that the petitioner filed a reply
to the article of charge. The Inquiry Officer and the Presenting
Officer were appointed. Mr. Agrawal would also submit that an
advocate was permitted to assist the petitioner in the departmental
inquiry. Mr. Agrawal would further contend that with the consent of
the parties, the departmental proceeding was set for the
complainant’s statement on 27.12.2013 and on the said date, the
advocate appointed by the petitioner was not available as he was
out of station, therefore, an application was moved by the
petitioner seeking adjournment but the said application was
rejected by the Inquiry Officer and the complainant was examined
by the prosecution. He would also contend that the petitioner was
3
not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and
later on, other witnesses were examined and cross-examined and
finally, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 10.07.2014. Mr.
Agrawal would also state that the second show-cause notice was
issued and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the
penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 14.10.2014. Mr.
Agrawal would argue that a departmental appeal was preferred
and it was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
13.10.2017. Mr. Agrawal would further argue that a criminal case
was also launched against the petitioner on the same set of facts
and allegations and in that criminal case, the petitioner was
acquitted. He would also argue that the facts, witnesses and
allegations are common in the departmental inquiry and the
criminal case, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have
considered the judgment passed in the criminal case while
inflicting the penalty of compulsory retirement. He would contend
that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the main witness
i.e. complainant has been denied. He would pray to quash the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 11.01.2017 and
affirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 13.10.2017.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal. He would
submit that the parameters to prove the guilt of an accused in a
criminal case and in the departmental inquiry are entirely different.
He would further submit that in the criminal case, the petitioner
was acquitted as the seizure witnesses did not support the case of
-4-
the prosecution, whereas in departmental enquiry, the witnesses
including the complainant supported the case of prosecution. He
would also contend that with the consent of the parties, the case
was fixed before the Inquiry Officer for the examination of the
complainant on 27.12.2013 but on the said date, an application
was moved for adjournment and that was the reason, the Inquiry
Officer rejected it and examined the complainant. He would also
submit that this ground was not raised by the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority. He would contend that this issue is being
raised for the first time before this Court, therefore, it is not
permissible. He would further contend that the two authorities have
recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner. He would also
contend that this Court has limited jurisdiction in the matter of
departmental inquiry while exercising the power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and only procedural part can be looked
into. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
5. The petitioner has not annexed the memo of departmental appeal
preferred before the Appellate Authority.
6. A perusal of the documents (Annexure P/6) on page No.91 would
show that the complainant was examined as Witness No.1. Her
chief was recorded by the Presenting Officer but she was not
cross-examined. An application was moved by the petitioner on
27.12.2013 seeking therein adjournment and it was rejected by the
Inquiry officer inter alia on the ground that the delinquent employee
5
was well informed about the date of proceedings and he was
granted permission to keep a legal practitioner for his defence and
therefore, his prayer for adjournment was rejected.
7. Though the proceedings were set for hearing by the Inquiry Officer
with the consent of the parties but on account of emergency or
other reasons, the Advocate engaged by the petitioner could not
appear and an application was moved seeking adjournment. The
enquiry officer rejected the application moved by the petitioner. In
the opinion of this Court, the Inquiry Officer ought to have granted
one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant.
The complainant was an important witness and she was only
examined by the prosecution and the petitioner was not permitted
to cross-examine and the application was rejected without
assigning sufficient reasons.
8. Though it is contended by Mr. Das that this issue was not raised
before the Appellate Authority but being a legal issue which goes
to the root of the case, it can be raised before this Court, thus, the
contention made by Mr. Das cannot be accepted.
9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, without making
any observation on the merits of the case, the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority dated 11.01.2017 and the Appellate Authority
dated 13.10.2017 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back
to the Inquiry Officer to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to
cross-examine the complainant and thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority would be at liberty to take appropriate decision on the
merits of the case.
-6-
10.For a limited purpose, this matter is remitted back. It is made clear
that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case.
11.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha