Dismissed

Anjani Kumar v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC29 Nov 2022WPC/4188/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging departmental orders imposing punishment via pay reduction. Rejecting the claim that the enquiry was perverse for ignoring court witness evidence, the Court held the report was well-reasoned and compliant with natural justice limits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders set aside; no interference in disciplinary proceedings allowed.

Anjani Kumar Vs Union of India And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2010

¶3

Anjani Kumar, son of Sri Dashrath Mandal, resident of Qrs. No. 4210, Sector-XI, Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro Permanent Address Chandan Nagar, Sarkanda, Godda, P.O.- Godda, P.S.- Godda, District- Godda, Pin- 814133

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.

¶7

Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Force Head Quarters, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

¶8

Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Office Complex, New Patliputra Colony, Boring Road, Patna.

¶9

Deputy Inspector General, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Stele City, Bokaro.

¶10

Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

¶11

Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Plant, BokaroSteel City, Bokaro.

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Shail Lakra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate ---

¶17

10 /29.11.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶18

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the final order dated 10.07.2009 issued under the signature of respondent No. 5 whereby and where under the petitioner was imposed with the punishment-pay scale has been reduced to stages i.e. from Rs. 7950+2400 (BP+GP) to Rs. 7320 + 2400 (BP + GP) in the present pay Band for the period of one year with the direction that during that period he will not earn increment and after completion of the said punishment the affect of said reduction in pay scale will be on further increment.

¶19

ii. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the order dated 30.4.2009 issued under the signature of respondent No. 4 whereby and where under the punishment dated 10.4.2009 has been modified to the extent that the effect

¶20

¶21

in the future increment has been deleted from the original punishment.

¶22

iii. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the order dated 3^rd March, 2010 issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 whereby and where under the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected being devoid of merit.

¶23

iv. For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary along with interest.”

¶24

3. The foundational facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 30.09.2008 (Annexure- 2) to which the petitioner responded. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings wherein only oral evidence was led. The petitioner also cross-examined the witnesses. The petitioner examined himself as defence witness and one court witness was also examined at the stage of enquiry.

¶25

4. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report and 2^nd show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed a reply. The disciplinary authority passed order of punishment of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs. 7950/- to Rs. 7320/- for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide Annexure8 against which the petitioner filed appeal. The memo of appeal is contained at Annexure- 9. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2009 (Annexure- 10) whereby the punishment of the petitioner was reduced to reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed revision against the same and the revision was dismissed vide Annexure- 12 dated 03.03.2010. The petitioner has challenged all the three orders passed by the authorities.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, has submitted that the solitary point involved in the present case is non consideration of the evidence of court witness who had not fully supported the case of the department. The enquiry officer has not considered his evidence while recording a finding against

¶27

¶28

the petitioner. He submits that non-consideration of evidence even at the enquiry stage while recording a finding, makes the enquiry report perverse and therefore, the impugned orders based on such perverse enquiry report, are not sustainable in the eyes of law which call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to secure the ends of justice.

¶29

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that no violation of principles of natural justice or any statutory provision, has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner during his course of argument. He has further submitted that from the perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that altogether three witnesses were examined from the side of the department, who had supported the case against the petitioner. One court witness namely B. Choudhary was also examined who was also on duty during the time of occurrence and the petitioner had also adduced himself as defence witness. The learned counsel submits that from the perusal of the enquiry report, it is apparent that the enquiry officer has considered all the witnesses including the evidence of B. Choudhary. He also submits that the incident and the altercation between the petitioner and the complainant is not in dispute but the record indicates that the petitioner had also made certain counter-allegations against the complainant.

¶30

7. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that considering the limited scope of interference under writ jurisdiction, there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials before the enquiry officer and coming to a different finding in absence of any perversity. He submits that all the materials having been considered by the enquiry officer, there is no perversity in the enquiry report.

¶31

8. Before proceeding, it would be important to keep in mind the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary enquiry in writ proceedings. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Deputy General Manager Vs. Ajai Kr. Srivastava” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 4 the scope of interference by constitutional courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings has been summarized in para 23 to 28, which are quoted as under: -

¶32

¶33

“ 23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya and recently by the threeJudge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India.

¶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 violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

26. 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.

¶40

27. 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.

¶41

28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of

¶42

¶43

mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”

¶44

9. Thus, the scope of interference in departmental enquiry in the present case has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement.

¶45

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that the sole argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the enquiry report is perverse on account of non-appreciation of the evidence of the court witness. The enquiry report has been placed before this Court. Upon perusal of the enquiry report, this Court finds that the enquiry officer, while recording a finding against the petitioner and holding him guilty, has considered all the evidences on record including the evidence of B. Choudhary – the court witness and also evidence of the petitioner who examined himself as a defence witness.

¶46

11. Upon going through the enquiry report, this Court finds that the argument of the petitioner that the enquiry report is perverse on account of non-consideration of the evidence of B. Choudhary - the court witness, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The enquiry report has considered all the materials which were available before the enquiry officer. This Court is of the considered view that the enquiry report cannot be said to be perverse. There has been no violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also give his own defence witness and even the court witness was also called and examined by the enquiry officer. No procedural lapse or any violation of statutory provision has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶47

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the solitary argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, such argument is hereby rejected. The impugned orders are well reasoned orders in due compliance of the

¶48

¶49

principles of natural justice and accordingly, they do not call for any interference in the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶50

13. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶51

14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶52

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶53

Pankaj

Anjani Kumar v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Kumar v. Union of India 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjani Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rameshwar Rai And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Mustakim Ansari And Ors. Vs Co. Operative

Subodh Kumar Hansda Vs State of Jharkhand

Shivendra Mohan Kumar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Abhinandan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.