The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the order dismissing a departmental appeal on the ground of limitation, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the matter on merits after hearing both parties.
Impugned order dated 14.08.2012 set aside; Appellate Authority directed to reconsider the appeal with reasoned order.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 877 of 2013
Order reserved on 6th May, 2023 Order delivered on 18th August, 2023
---- Petitioner
Versus
For Petitioner : Shri PN Bharat, Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms Shivali Dubey, PL
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
(CAV Order)
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P1) and 14.08.2012 (Annexure P2) are bad in law.
Wps 877 of 2013
2
10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P1) & 14.08.2012 (Annexure P2).
10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
Wps 877 of 2013
3
interpolation has not been made by the petitioner herself. Further, respondents failed to consider that the said interpolation in the Mark-sheet was made by husband of the petitioner- Kamlesh Thakur and the same was not in the knowledge of petitioner, as it was concluded in the enquiry report. Respondent-3 while passing the impugned order, has erred in not considering that the appointment was not made only due to interpolation in the marks but she was appointed after taking a test of Computer and Typing. Even if petitioner’s marks are 191, she would have topped the merit list, as the other two are having marks of 185 and 168 each, and it is clear from the tabulation sheet- Annexure P8. Respondents further failed to consider that DE is not a mere formality, and it has to be done as per law and every possible opportunity has to be afforded to the delinquent employee. During the DE, no document was supplied to the petitioner, which made her handicap to submit anything in her defense, hence, the enquiry proceeding as well as the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Enquiry Officer specifically concluded the report saying that the alleged interpolation of marks in the marks-sheet has not been done by the petitioner. Order dated 27.10.2010 has been passed by respondent-2 without going through the enquiry report and without application of mind, and Appellate authority also disposed of the departmental appeal in a casual and mechanical manner on the ground of limitation. Orders dated 27.10.2010 and 14.08.2012 are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel relies on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of UP and others Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131.
Wps 877 of 2013
4
percentage of marks as 42% in the Senior School, whereas, she actually obtained 38.2%, as her marks in that examination were 191 out of 500. However, by interpolating those 191 marks as 219, she showed her percentage in the form as 42, therefore, percentage of marks scored by the petitioner is not correct. She only got 38.2% marks in the Senior School. In the DE, petitioner was given opportunity of hearing to defend herself, therefore, impugned order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Collector, South Bastar Dantewada, and the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority are perfectly in accordance with law. Petitioner had submitted her percentage of marks wrongly in the application form and submitted the same for illegal benefit of appointment on the basis of forged documents, therefore, she cannot claim her actual marks to be considered and she cannot be reinstated after being found guilty in the DE. There is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Enquiry Officer after full enquiry, submitted report and opined as under:
mijksDr foHkkxh; tkap ds fofHkUu igywvksa ij tkpa] vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku] o izdj.k esa layXu nLrkostksa ds v/;;u mijkaUr fudkys x;s fu”d”kZ ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vipkjh deZpkjh ds ifr Jh deys’k Bkdqj lgk;d xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh] }kjk vipkjh] ¼tks fj’rs esa iRuh gS½ dks] bl n`f”Vdks.k ls ykHk igWwpkus ds mn~ns’; ls 10 oha vksiu Ldwy ds vadlwph esa dqVjpuk ,ao gsjkQsjh fd;s tkus dh iw.kZ laHkkouk gSaA
vf/kdkjh ds }kjk f’kdk;r dzaekd 1 ls 4 esa mYysf[kr fcanqvksa dk tkap dj vius fu”d”kZ esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd Jh deys’k Bkdqj ds f’kdk;r i= dzaekd 7/5/2007 ds laca/k esa
Wps 877 of 2013
5
Jh ds-vkj- dqtkae] ftyk vads{kd] iapk;r ,ao lekt dY;k.k ftyk nf{k.k cLrj narsokM+k ds }kjk fofHkUu fcaUnqvksa ij dh xbZ tkap izfrosnu] vipkjh deZpkjh o vfHk;kstu lk{;ksa ds dFku ds vk/kkj ij vipkjh deZpkjh ds mij yxk;k x;k vkjksi iw.kZr% izekf.kr gkuk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gSA
vr,o Jhefr lhek Bkdqj] lgk;d xzsM &3] dk;kZy; mi lapkyd] iapk;r ,ao lekt lsok] nf{k.k cLrj narsokM+k layXu tuin iapk;r xhne ds }kjk fd;k x;k d`R; N]x]flfoy lsok,a fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3 ds foijhr gksus rFkk Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr~ vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkus ds dkj.k Nrrhlx<+ flfoy lsok,a ¼ oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,ao vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ¼ukS½ ds rgr~ ‘kkldh; lsok ls rRdky izHkko ls inP;qr fd;k tkrk gSA
"Be that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. So also he would have needed the copies of the
Wps 877 of 2013
6
documents to enable him to effectively cross- examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of the documents. It is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself."
13. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/( Rajani Dubey ) JUDGE
padma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate authority could dismiss the departmental appeal solely on the ground of limitation without addressing substantive grounds.
Whether the termination order was passed without reasonable opportunity of hearing due to non-supply of documents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of UP and others Vs Saroj Kumar SinhaReferred¶42
State of UP and others Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 · Who else cites this
Seema Mandavi
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
