Budhwar Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:61376

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 7637 of 2023

¶6

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶7

1 - Budhwar Singh S/o Ram Sai Aged About 51 Years Working As General Mazdoor Category-4 (West M.T.K.), B Form No. 3720, Secl Gevra Project, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Secl Headquarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Deputy General Manager (Mines)/mines Manager Secl Gevra Project, DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Senior Manager (Mines)/inquiry Officer Secl, Gevra Project, DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Manager (Personnel) Secl Gevra Project, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner :- Mr. Goutam Khetarpal, Advocate For Respondents:Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

16.12.2025

¶20

The instant writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order-cum-show cause notice dated 30.06.2023 / 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 2, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days on the basis of an enquiry report, failing which the management proposed to proceed ex-parte, as well as against the entire departmental enquiry which is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no relied-upon documents were supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before preparation of the enquiry report; it is further pertinent to note that the charge-sheet dated 08/10.2022 was admittedly served upon the petitioner only on 26.06.2023, whereas the departmental enquiry was conducted on 21.06.2023 and the enquiry report was prepared and submitted on 27.06.2023, clearly establishing that no fair, legal or transparent enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities, rendering the impugned proceedings wholly unsustainable in law.

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶22

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order-

¶23

3

¶24

cum-show cause notice dated 30.06.2023/ 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/1).

¶25

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner as well as enquiry report dated 27.06.2023 being illegal and unfair.

¶26

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶27

Facts of the case are that on 24.02.2016, one Vivek Tiwari lodged a complaint before the Satarkata Adhikari, SECL, Bilaspur alleging that the petitioner and others had secured employment fraudulently, pursuant to which the Chief Vigilance Officer directed an enquiry on 06.04.2016 and thereafter the General Manager, SECL, Gevra issued further directions on 14.07.2016, culminating in submission of a police report by the Superintendent of Police, Korba on 17.08.2022, though the said report was never supplied to the petitioner. Based on the said undisclosed report, a chargesheet dated 21.09.2022 was issued, which itself records that the petitioner received the charge-sheet only on 26.06.2023. During the relevant period the petitioner had met with a serious accident resulting in paralysis and remained under prolonged medical treatment, as reflected from the discharge summary dated 26.09.2022 and subsequent treatment documents dated

¶28

4

¶29

10.10.2022 (Annexure P/7). Despite his medical condition, on 21.06.2023 the Enquiry Officer concluded the entire departmental enquiry by merely recording the petitioner’s statement, without serving any appointment order of the Enquiry Officer, without issuing notice of enquiry, without examining any witnesses, and in complete violation of principles of natural justice, and thereafter submitted the enquiry report dated 21.06.2023. The petitioner immediately raised objection on 07.07.2023 pointing out denial of opportunity and his medical incapacity. The petitioner, an uneducated land-loser appointed in Mazdoor Category, was supplied only partial documents consisting of five pages. That ultimately, upon conclusion of the enquiry, a second show-cause notice dated 03.07.2023 was issued directing submission of reply within seven days, compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order-cum-notice and the entire departmental enquiry proceedings culminating in the enquiry report dated 27.06.2023 are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, perverse and violative of the principles of natural justice, and therefore liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a mechanical and predetermined manner, without affording any reasonable or effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings were merely an empty formality, conducted only to justify a pre-decided conclusion against the petitioner. Learned

¶31

5

¶32

counsel further submits that from a bare perusal of the enquiry report itself, it is apparent that the meetings fixed on 20.03.2023, 29.03.2023 and 02.06.2023 were adjourned on account of alleged non-appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 21.06.2023, the enquiry was abruptly concluded in a single sitting and the enquiry report was prepared and submitted on 27.06.2023, which clearly demonstrates that the enquiry was neither fair nor meaningful. Thus, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the writ petition and submits that the writ petition is misconceived and premature as the petitioner, working as General Mazdoor, has challenged only a show-cause notice dated 30.06.2023 / 03.07.2023, the departmental enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report dated 27.06.2023, which by themselves do not give rise to any cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, that the petitioner actively participated in the enquiry proceedings held on 21.06.2023 along with his co-worker without raising any objection regarding non-supply of charge-sheet or documents, that full opportunity of hearing and cross-examination was afforded but deliberately declined by the petitioner, and that the enquiry minutes clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was unwilling to sign the proceedings. It is further submitted that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer was duly made and

¶34

6

¶35

communicated to the petitioner through office orders dated 06.10.2022 and 26.02.2023, and multiple notices of appearance dated 14.03.2023, 21.03.2023, 26.05.2023 and 07.06.2023 were issued, negating the allegation of denial of opportunity. The respondent denies that the enquiry was based solely on the report of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, and submits that the petitioner suffered no prejudice whatsoever during the enquiry. It is further argued that the letter dated 07.07.2023 was merely a delaying tactic after full participation in the enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

This Court has duly considered the pleadings, the documents annexed with the writ petition, the departmental enquiry record placed on record by the petitioner himself, and the return filed by the respondent–SECL. A perusal of the record reveals that along with the charge-sheet, the petitioner was furnished with the statement of imputations of charges, articles of charge, list of documents, and list of witnesses. The petitioner has acknowledged receipt of the said documents by affixing his signature dated 06.06.2023, which acknowledgment has been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. In view thereof, the plea of non-supply of documents raised by the petitioner stands falsified by the record itself.

¶38

7

¶39

It further emerges from the departmental enquiry proceedings that the petitioner was granted liberty to take assistance of a coemployee during the enquiry. The record establishes that the petitioner availed such assistance and was represented by his colleague throughout the enquiry proceedings. During the enquiry, the management was afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the charges. The witnesses produced by the management were subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner through his assisting colleague. Thus, adequate and effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend himself. The record further discloses that the petitioner was examined in defence and his statement was duly recorded. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by the department. This clearly demonstrates that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶40

Though it is contended that the petitioner’s signature does not appear on the last page of the enquiry proceedings, the said circumstance, by itself, does not vitiate the enquiry, particularly when there is no material on record to show that the enquiry was concluded behind the back of the petitioner or that he was denied participation at any stage. From the departmental enquiry record filed by the petitioner himself as well as from the return submitted by the respondent–SECL, there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was deprived of any relevant document or denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

¶41

8

¶42

In the absence of any procedural illegality, perversity, or violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the departmental proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶43

No order as to cost(s).

¶44

sd/-

¶45

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶46

Vishakha

Budhwar Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhwar Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Agharaiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhugna Mahanand Vs Ashwani Kharsal

Behru Chhura Vs Ashwani Kharsal

Smt. Krishna Majumdar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ankita Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramcharan Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh