R. K. Pansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:13791

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 683 of 2021

¶6

1 - R. K. Pansari S/o Late Shri F.L. Pansari Aged About 61 Years Working As Sub-Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur, R/o Ashoka- 77, Kharun Greens, H.B. Colony Kukda, Kumhari, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Upper Secretary Department Of Water Resources, Mananadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Superintendent Engineer-Cum-Enquiry Officer Rural Engineering Services, Raipur, Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Executive Engineer-Cum-Presenting Officer Rural Engineering Services, Division Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer

¶17

BHUMIKA ANGARE

¶18

Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.04.15 14:26:24 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

22.03.2025

¶23

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, District Raipur whereby petitioner has been imposed with penalty of recovery of salary dues in the amount equivalent to withholding of two salary increments without cumulative effect and also against the order of review by which review application filed by him has been rejected by the respondent No. 2.

¶24

The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner was working as Sub-Engineer, Balod District Durg in Water Resources Department and he was served with charge-sheet wherein following charges were leveled against him which reads as under:

¶25

^1- ckyksn fo- [k- nqxZ esa dsjh taqxsjk ukyk ij fuekZ.kk/khu LVkiMse lg jiVk gsrq vk;qDr vkfne tkfr vuq- tkfr ,oa fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k foHkkx jk;iqj ds }kjk :- 9- 52 yk[k dh Á’kkldh; Lohd`fr nh tkdj dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark xzkeh.k ;kaf=dh lsok] laHkkx ckyksn dks fdz;kUo;u ,tsalh cuk;k x;k FkkA bl dk;Z esa fjVuZ oky dh uhao gsrq [kqnkbZ djrs le; vko’;d LVsfiax ugha dh xbZ gSA dVsZu oky ,oa fjVuZ oky dh uhac gsrq feVVh [kqnkbZ dh eki dk banzkt Hkh eki iqfLrdk esa lgh jhfr ls ugha fd;k x;k gSA fcuk vkj-,y- dk mYys[k fd;s laiw.kZ 40 eh- dh yackbZ esa dsoy rhu LFkkuksa ij xgjkbZ uki dj vkSlr fudkyk x;k gSA uhao [kqnkbZ ls 132 D;w-eh- iRFkj ÁkIr gq, Fks] ftUgsa lqjf{kr j[kus dh ctk; Bsdsnkj dks MkbolZu ekxZ ,oa Vªsap fQfyax esa bLrseky djus gsrq fu’kqYd ns fn;k x;k gS] tcfd [kqnkbZ ls ÁkIr iRFkj ‘kkldh; lkexzh gksrk gS ,oa mls ,d fu/kkZfjr b’kw jsV ij Bsdsnkj dks nsdj mldk ewY; Bsdsnkj ds fcy ls dkVk tkuk pkfg, Fkk] tks fd ;gka ugha fd;k x;k gSA lhesaV dakdzhV gsrq bLrseky dh xbZ 40 fe-eh- fxVVh ekud vuqlkj ugha ikbZA fjVuZ oky gsrq dh xbZ 40 fe-eh- fxV~Vh ds lkFk 1%3%6 lhesaV dkadzhV Á;ksx’kkyk tkap esa 1%5%8 ds vuqikr dh ikbZ xbZ tks fd fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuq:i ugha gSA Vªsap fQfyax esa okVfjax ,oa jSafeax ekud vuqlkj ugha ikbZ xbZA dkadzhfVax gsrq estfjax okDl dk mi;ksx djus dh ctk; ?kesyksa dk bLrseky fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k tks fd loZFkk vuqfpr gSA fujh{k.k ds le; dk;Z LFky ij lkbZV vkMZj cqd] lhesaV [kir jftLVj] ,oa D;wc VsLV jftLVj rFkk D;wc Hkjus gsrq lkaps Hkh miyC/k ugha FksaA^

¶26

3

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice for proposed punishment was given wherein one increment without cumulative effect was withheld but the punishment of 2 increments has been imposed which is illegal. He would further submit that enquiry has been conducted in violation of principle of natural justice as no proper opportunity to defend was given to the petitioner. Thus, he would pray for quashing of the entire proceedings and order of recovery.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of cross-examining the defence witness and also he was allowed to submit written brief, as such enquiry proceeding was conducted in a fair and transparent manner giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report wherein responsibility upon the petitioner was partially fixed. He would further submit that the findings of the enquiry report is neither perverse nor suffers from illegality. He would further submit that punishment imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the misconduct. It has been further contended that power of interference of this Court in disciplinary matter is very limited and this is not the case where the interference in the disciplinary matter is called for, thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

From submission made by learned counsel for the parties the points emerged for determination are:

¶31

4

¶32

(i) whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in compliance of principle of natural justice, following the Rule prescribed for conducting the enquiry?

¶33

(ii) Whether the punishment is proportionate to misconduct committed by the petitioner or this Court can interfere in the punishment imposed upon the petitioner?

¶34

To appreciate first point, it is expedient for this Court to go through enquiry proceedings. From the perusal of enquiry record, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was given opportunity to lead evidence. The State has examined the evidence and State witness namely Shri S.L. Patel was given opportunity to cross-examine by the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to submit written brief also. Thus, there was sufficient compliance of principle of natural justice. Even otherwise, in the pleadings made before this Court that there was no such averments made by the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity to participate in the enquiry or any action on the part of Enquiry Officer deprived him to defend the case properly which causes prejudice in his defense. In absence of any such pleading and material placed on record, it can be held that enquiry was conducted in fair manner.

¶35

From the above-stated factual matrix of the case, it is quite vivid that opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and all the procedure has been duly complied with and the enquiry Officer after appreciating the evidence and material on record has given finding that the petitioner was negligent towards discharge of his duty. Accordingly,

¶36

5

¶37

it held that the petitioner has committed misconduct for which he has been charge-sheeted, thus, it is quite vivid that the entire procedure was followed after giving sufficient opportunity. Accordingly point No. 1 is answered in favor of the State by recording finding that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with principle of natural justice and it is not liable to be interfered by this Court.

¶38

So far as submission and discussion of Point No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that punishment was so shocking and disproportionate to the misconduct and he has been suffered with the penalty by withholding of 2 increments without cumulative effect and amount of 2 increments is directed to be recovered from petitioner whereas in the setup of the department above him Assistant Sub Engineer, Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer are also there who are also liable for imposing of penalty and petitioner has been singled out, thus he has been subjected to discrimination and even the punishment is shocking to the misconduct committed by him, thus he would pray for interference in the punishment. Whereas learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that punishment is not disproportionate to the misconduct and he is In-charge of the site, therefore, it is his duty to supervise the work very carefully and has not taken any interest to see that the construction is done in accordance with the tender and as per the PWD manual, despite this he has verified the same which has been approved by the Department. Thus, he was solely responsible for sub-standard construction. It has been further contended that it is well settled position of law that in case of

¶39

6

¶40

punishment matter this Court cannot interfere unless the punishment is so shocking and disproportionate to the misconduct. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

Considering the rival submissions and also considering that the punishment of 2 increments without cumulative effect has been passed and punishment is not disproportionate as the petitioner was wholly responsible for his negligence in not supervising the quality of the work. Even punishment is not so shocking which touches the sentiment of the Court and also considering the well settled position of law that unless and until the punishment is so shocking or disproportionate to the misconduct, the Court cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment.

¶42

In light of the above-stated legal position and also considering the fact that the punishment of withholding of 02 increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner which is neither disproportionate to the misconduct nor touches the conscience of this Court which warrants interference, I am of the view that point No. 2 deserves to be answered against the petitioner.

¶43

Consequentially, it is held that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with principle of natural justice giving opportunity to the petitioner and punishment is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner, thus, no interference in the order dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P/1) and review order dated 05.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) is called for. The interference in the disciplinary matter is subject matter of examination by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Haryana

¶44

7

¶45

Financial Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in

¶46

(2008) 9 SCC 31 has considered this issue wherein paragraphs 43 to 45 held as under:

¶47

“43. In Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 4 SCC 153, referring to the relevant case-law, this Court said;

¶48

“In view of the aforementioned decisions of this Court, it is now well settled that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with by the disciplinary authority. He was also required to apply his mind to the materials on record. The enquiry officer arrived at findings which were in favour of the appellant. Such findings were required (sic sought) to be overturned by the disciplinary authority. It is in that view of the matter, the power sought to be exercised by the disciplinary authority, although not as that of an Appellate Authority, but is akin thereto. The inquiry report was in favour of the appellant but the disciplinary authority proposed to differ with such conclusions and, thus, apart from complying with the principles of natural justice it was obligatory on his part, in the absence of any show-cause filed by the appellant, to analyse the materials on record afresh. It was all the more necessary because even CBI, after a thorough investigation in the matter, did not find any case against the appellant and thus, filed a closure report. It is, therefore, not a case where the appellant was exonerated by a criminal court after a full-fledged trial by giving benefit of doubt. It was also not a case where the appellant could be held guilty in the disciplinary proceedings applying the standard of proof as preponderance of the probability as contrasted with the standard of proof in a criminal trial i.e. proof beyond all reasonable doubt. When a final form was filed in favour of the appellant, CBI even did not find a prima facie case against him. The disciplinary authority in the aforementioned peculiar situation was obligated to apply its mind on the materials brought on record by the parties in the light of the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. It should not have relied only on the reasons disclosed by him in his show-cause notice which, it will bear repetition to state, was only tentative in nature. As the Appellate Authority in arriving at its finding, laid emphasis on the fact that the appellant has not filed any objection to the show- cause notice; ordinarily, this Court would not have

¶49

8

¶50

exercised its power of judicial review in such a matter, but the case in hand appears to be an exceptional one as the appellant was exonerated by the inquiry officer. He filed a show-cause but, albeit after some time the said cause was available with the disciplinary authority before he issued the order of dismissal. Even if he had prepared the order of dismissal, he could have considered the show-cause as he did not leave his office by then. The expression "communication" in respect of an order of dismissal or removal from service would mean that the same is served upon the delinquent officer". (See State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313 )

¶51

From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of Inquiry Officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent- employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show `prejudice'. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the Inquiry Officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent- employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.

¶52

In the instant case, no finding has been recorded by the High Court that prejudice had been caused to the delinquentemployee- writ-petitioner. According to the High Court, such prejudice is `writ large'. In our view, the above observation and conclusion is not in consonance with the decisions referred to above, including a decision of the Constitution Bench in B. Karunakar. The view of the High Court, hence, cannot be upheld. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. ”

¶53

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin

¶54

Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 3 SCC 556 in Para

¶55

37 has held as under:

¶56

“37. Thereafter, this Court notices the development of the principle that prejudice must be proved and not presumed even in cases where procedural requirements have not been complied with. The Court notices a number of judgments in

¶57

9

¶58

which the action has not been held ipso facto illegal, unlawful or void unless it is shown that non-observance had prejudicially affected the applicant. Ultimately, it is concluded as follows: (Haryana Financial Corpn. case, SCC p. 44, рага 44)

¶59

"44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show 'prejudice'. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.”

¶60

In light of the above stated legal position and also considering the factual matrix of case, I am of the view that no interference is required and the writ petition sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶63

Judge

¶64

Bhumika

R. K. Pansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. K. Pansari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalkuri Chanke Shalu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhanlaxmi Traders Main Road Jorapali Vs Nandkishore Chandra

Abhilasha Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemraj Harbansh Vs State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary

Khemraj Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dwaraka Prasad Ragra, Vs State of Chhattisgarh