Petitioner challenged his removal from Forest Guard service, arguing acquittal in a related criminal case precluded departmental punishment. The Court held different standards of proof apply in criminal and departmental proceedings and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner remains removed from service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2177 of 2012
Dhannuram Yadav, S/o Shri Budhram Yadav, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Achanakmar, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board
20.09.2021
“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby setting aside the order issued by respondent No.2 dated 5/6.3.2012 (Annexure P/1) and order dated
2
19/21.11.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.3 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, in the ends of justice.
10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including cost.”
3
he was suspended and thereafter, Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were also appointed vide order dated 17.09.2010. After full-fledged inquiry, Enquiry Officer found both the charges levelled against petitioner proved. Disciplinary Authority after receiving inquiry report from Enquiry Officer issued notice to petitioner on 14.10.2011 (Annexure P/3) asking to submit defence as to why he should not be removed from service. Disciplinary Authority while considering inquiry report as well as defence statement submitted by petitioner, passed an order dated 21.11.2011 terminating service of petitioner with immediate effect vide Annexure P/6.
4
wildlife. Both the authorities have failed to consider that petitioner got acquitted from charges in Criminal Case No.449/2010 passed in 22.11.2010 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota whereby petitioner along with others have been acquitted of similar charges, which is subject matter of disciplinary inquiry proceedings. When once the Court came to conclusion that involvement of petitioner is not found to be proved in criminal case, respondents ought not to have passed an order of punishment in departmental proceedings. Copy of order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kota dated 22.11.2010 is filed as Annexure P/5. Appellate Authority also has not considered all grounds raised by petitioner in its entirety. Impugned order passed by Appellate Authority is not a speaking order on all the grounds raised by petitioner in his appeal. Appellate Authority is bound to consider and decide the grounds raised by delinquent employee and to pass a speaking order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner places reliance upon an order passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1010 of 2012 dated 11.08.2021. He submits that there is no evidence against petitioner, but he has been punished only on the basis of suspicion, which is not sustainable. When once petitioner has been acquitted on same set of facts and evidence in criminal case, he could not be convicted on same facts and evidence by Disciplinary Authority in departmental proceedings. Lastly, it is pointed that punishment imposed
5
against petitioner in the facts of the case is too harsh. He submits that orders passed by Appellate Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority be quashed and petitioner be reinstated in his service.
6
petitioner stated that the person, by name Tahar Singh, occupant of bottle green Scorpio Jeep, came to barrier, asked petitioner to permit him to enter into forest area, to which, he objected and subsequently, key was snatched and forcefully, lock of barrier was open; whereas in appeal, it is pleaded that petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion, he was under threat of his life and incident was immediately reported. The petitioner in his evidence stated that he accompanied other co-accused persons including Tahar Singh to forest area in the night for taking dead body of antelope at suitable place, which was considered by Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.
7
have admitted that in the night also, Tahar Singh of Lormi called him and he along with other went to place of hunting in forest area, he was given threat of his life and also of his family members and under fear, he accompanied accused persons.
8
Authority that petitioner made an attempt to mislead the authorities while they were conducting inquiry of hunting of a wild animal.
“21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 1 SCC 259 ).
9
be beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, nature of prove is based on preponderance of probability, hence, merely on the ground that petitioner was acquitted from criminal charges, would not be in itself sufficient to hold that petitioner is not guilty of misconduct.
“7. Acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are totally different. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, we find that the department has been able to prove the case on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellant are found to be without any merit.”
10
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Sd/-
Yogesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether disciplinary authorities can impose punishment in departmental proceedings despite the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal case for the same facts.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on a delinquent employee under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the dismissal order was arbitrary or vitiated by breach of natural justice or being perverse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari BabuExplained¶42
(2008) 5 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of IndiaExplained¶43
(1999) 1 SCC 259 · Who else cites this
Samar Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersExplained¶48
(2011) 9 SCC 94 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhannuram Yadav
State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
The Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
