Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar Korram v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2024WPS/1968/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A dismissed constable challenged his dismissal after departmental enquiry into misconduct during Naxal operations, arguing the enquiry breached natural justice and drunkenness was unproven without medical evidence. The Court held no bias or prejudice arose, other charges were duly proved, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition challenging dismissal from service was dismissed.

Sanjeev Kumar Korram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.1968 of 2013

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar Korram, S/o Shri Abbhan Singh Korram, Aged About 35 Years Pandripani (Kanker), Police Station Kanker, Distt. Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt. Kanker C.G. ---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Deptt. Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Distt. Raiur C.G.

¶7

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶8

Superintendent Of Police North Bastar, Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt. Kanker C.G.

¶9

Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Civil And Revenue Distt. Kanker C.G.

¶10

Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, Lalbag, Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Jagdalpur C.G. ----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner: Shri Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶13

02.02.2024

¶14

This Petition is preferred against the order dated 06.10.2011 (Annexure P-10) whereby, after departmental enquiry, under MP/CG Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’) a major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner arising out of the order

¶15

¶16

dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P-11) whereby, the Appeal challenging the order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P-12) was dismissed by rejecting the mercy Petition preferred by the Petitioner herein for reinstatement of his services with all the consequential benefits.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was working as a Constable posted at Dhamkasa Police Chowki. The Incharge of the said Police Chowki, Dhamkasa has informed the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Bhanupratappur about the negligent act and unauthorized absence of the Petitioner on 01.09.2010 who in turn, has informed the Superintendent of Police, North Bastar, Kanker about the same vide letter dated 02.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) and the Petitioner has given his explanation in reply to the show cause notice issued to him by the SDO(P) on 06.10.2010 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, a preliminary enquriy was conducted and a report was submitted on 15.10.2010 (Anneuxre P-4) in pursuance of which, departmental enquiry has been initiated for the following charges:

¶18

“1- vfr laosnu'khy uDly izHkkfor {ks= esa inLFk gksrs gq, lkSais x;s dk;ksZ ,oa lqj{kk funsZ”kksa dh vogsyuk dj vukf/kd`r :i ls xSjgkftj gksuk rFkk 'kjkc dk lsou dj drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa vuq'kklughurk o dnkpj.k iznf'kZr djukA

¶19

2- iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk dzekad &64 esa fn, x, lsok dh lkekU; lsok 'krsZ ds dfM+dk ¼2½ dk

¶20

¶21

mYya?ku djuk A

¶22

3- vfr laosnu'khy {ks= esa x'r esa xbZ gqbZ ikVhZ ds ikVhZ dekaMj ds funsZ'k ds cxSj vuko';d :i ls Qjkj gksdj le>kbZl dh ijokg u djrs gq, lafnX/k vkpj.k dk ifjp; nsuk ,oa lkFk gh iqfyl ikVhZ dh taxy esa xksiuh;rk Hkax djrs gq, ikVhZ ,oa Loa; dks vlqjf{kr cukuk A”

¶23

The details of misconduct have been stated in the charge sheet dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) that on 27.08.2010 during Naxal operation, the Petitioner has disobeyed the order of the party Commander and breached the confidentiality by firing two rounds by his service rifle and on 28.08.2010, he was found in drunken condition and also without any prior information, remained absent from his duty unauthorizedly and on 06.09.2010 at 9.30 p.m, at the premises of Police Station, Bhanupratappur, he took the rifle which has been issued to SP(O) Jagatram Tandia in his possession, fired one round and thereby committed dereliction in his duties in spite of being posted at the most sensitized Naxal affected area leading to violation of Rule 64(2) of the Chhattisgarh Police Acts and Regulations and as such, committed a serious misconduct, which is unbecoming of a Police Officer. After departmental enquiry, all the three charges were found to be proved against the Petitioner and the disciplinary authority has imposed a major penalty of dismissal from his service against which, a departmental Appeal

¶24

¶25

and a mercy Petition have been filed, which were also dismissed. Hence, this Petition.

¶26

Shri Pali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that during the enquiry, no Presenting Officer has been appointed and the Enquiry Officer himself has conducted the enquiry. He has taken a specific ground that an Enquiry Officer cannot play both the roles in the capacity of Presenting Officer as well as Judge of the case, therefore, the said enquiry is violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that during the enquiry, the Petitioner has also not been given any opportunity to defend himself properly and no independent witness was examined. He further submits that the explanation of the Petitioner (Annexure P-6) was not considered by the Enquiry Officer though the allegation that the Petitioner was found in a drunken condition was not substantiated by any medical report or any scientific test being done, therefore, it is not sufficient to prove the said charges. He placed reliance on the matter of Kamleshwar Prasad Trivedi (Dead) through Lrs vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors [W.P(S) No.2538/2007 dated 17.10.2019] and submitted that an Enquiry officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer and further placed reliance on the matter of Dilip Kumar Dubey vs. State M.P & Ors. [W.P.(S) No.1047/2005 dated 25.10.2010] and prays to quash the impugned orders and allow the Petition while reinstating the

¶27

¶28

services of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits.

¶29

On the other hand, Shri Ghosh, learned Counsel for the State/Respondents submits that during enquiry, sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner and he has fully participated in the enquiry proceedings and even in his statement recorded during the said enquiry (Annexure P-8), while replying to question No.17, he has categorically admitted his mistake and also sought a sympathetic consideration of his family condition. He further submits that while replying to question No.12 of the said enquiry, the Petitioner categorically admits firing of two rounds by his rifle during Naxal operation on 27.08.2010 and at question No.11, with regard to the incident that took place 06.09.2010, he has categorically admitted his guilt. He further submits that the Department has examined as many as 15 witnesses and an opportunity of cross-examination was also given to the Petitioner but he himself did not put any question and as such, not availed the said opportunity. He has particularly pointed out that in the statement of Commander of the team-ASI Sujan Jagat (PW-9), he has categorically detailed about the misconduct of the Petitioner with regard to firing the rifle and giving indication to the Naxal Party due to which, the said operation failed and he further stated that without any information, the Petitioner has left the camp and placed his rifle and cartridge in the barrack, therefore, the Petitioner being

¶30

¶31

a Police Officer posted at a Naxalite belt has committed a serious misconduct and as such, the Enquiry Officer and the appellate authority have rightly come to the conclusion that the charges were duly proved. He fairly submits that even if the charge of drunken condition was not found proved, the other charges are sufficient enough to award punishment of penalty which will commensurate the misconduct committed by the Petitioner. He further submits that the defence taken by the Petitioner that he is not mentally sound has neither been substantiated by producing any medical certificate nor has any Doctor been examined in that regard and as such, there is no scope for judicial review warranting any interference and prays to dismiss the Petition.

¶32

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned as also the documents annexed herewith carefully.

¶33

In the matter of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental enquiry has been analyzed and the relevant paras-24 to 27 read thus:-

¶34

“24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in

¶35

¶36

violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

¶37

When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:

¶38

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

¶39

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

¶40

6iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

¶41

It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

¶42

It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.”

¶43

Rule-14 of the Rules of 1966 prescribes that a Presenting

¶44

¶45

Officer may be appointed by the disciplinary authority on its behalf to hold any enquiry. This Court has put a specific query whether during enquiry, in any manner, the enquiry Officer has played the role of Prosecutor and whether he has put any leading question to any witness during examination-in-chief to which, Shri Pali failed to demonstrate that in any manner, the enquiry Officer has acted in a biased manner and when on such score, no prejudice has been caused to the delinquent Officer, then this Court is of the view that the said ground is not acceptable.

¶46

In the matter of Kamleshwar Prasad Trivedi (Dead) through Lrs vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors (supra), when a charge has been framed against the delinquent Officer that he was found in a drunken condition while on duty, it was replied that the said allegation has to be proved satisfactorily when no statement of the doctor was available or another report was obtained but it cannot be definitely held that the delinquent Officer was drunk at the time of the incident and in the said judgment, reliance was placed on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1971) 3 SCC 930 and Munna Lal vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399.

¶47

Considering the evidence available on record in the instant matter, this Court is of the view that according to charge No.1, the partial allegation with regard to drunken condition of the Petitioner

¶48

¶49

at the time of discharging official duty was not found to be proved but the other charges have been duly proved as while search operation at a Naxal affected area, he has not obeyed the instructions of the party Commander and also fired by his service rifle due to which, the Naxal party came to know the presence of the police team which lead to failure of the said operation and the same amounts to serious misconduct and breach of confidentiality on the part of the Petitioner at the field which goes to show that the Petitioner has violated the safety and security instructions owing to misconduct and dereliction of duty on becoming of a police officer, therefore, ample evidence being available on record, the penalty imposed in commensuration of misconduct is just and proper.

¶50

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶51

Resultantly, the Petition being devoid of any merits, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶54

Priya

Sanjeev Kumar Korram v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Korram v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. R. Ratre @ Avinash Vs Ramkumar Saxena

Javendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Resham Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Prasad Awasthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asha Jog Vs State Govt Of Chhattisgarh

Anita Morla Vs State of Chhattisgarh