Sanjay Kumar Banjare Vs Registrar General Com Disciplinary Authority

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6688 of 2017

¶5

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

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

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

¶9

Deputy Registrar, Cum Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur Police Station- Chakarbhata, Tahsil- Bilha, Civil & Revenue, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. :- Not Known

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, For respondents : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶13

14.07.2025

¶14

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶15

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records regarding present case from respondent authority.

¶16

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 (AnnexureP/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.

¶17

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.

¶18

10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case

¶19

-2-

¶20

including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶21

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

¶22

3

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

-4-

¶26

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.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶28

The petitioner has not annexed the memo of departmental appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority.

¶29

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

¶30

5

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

-6-

¶36