Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
B.P. Tiwari S/o Jamuna Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through – The Secretary, Forest Department & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 2163 of 2011
Decided On : 01-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri A.N. Pandey
For the Respondents: Shri R.K. Gupta
Headnote:
M.P. (Now C.G.) General Clauses Act, 1957 - Section 21 - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Rule 14 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 227 - Assailed legality and validity of memo - Allegations of misconduct - Issue a fresh charge sheet - Facts necessary for decision of controversy involved in this petition are that while petitioner was posted and working as Range Officer District – Departmental enquiry was instituted by issuance of charge sheet - As many as two charges were leveled against petitioner - Petitioner submitted his reply to charge sheet - An enquiry officer was appointed who collected evidence and thereafter presenting officer on behalf of prosecution submitted prosecution brief to enquiry officer - At this stage charge sheet was issued to petitioner termed and styled as amended charge sheet - It is this charge sheet which is challenge before this Court - Sole submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that respondents have acted beyond authority in issuing a fresh charge sheet on same allegations of misconduct while earlier enquiry is on verge of completion – Held, It may be different thing that in given case exercise of power may be held illegal for any reasons known to law but court of view that such power in present case particularly in back drop of statutory schemes available with disciplinary authority - State counsel has clearly stated that charges are only by way of alteration and amendment and it is not case of de novo enquiry - Despite this statement this Court would like to add by way of abundant caution to protect interest of petitioner that impugned memo shall only be treated as alteration or amendment of existing charges and not case of de novo enquiry - Enquiry shall proceed further from present stage prosecution and petitioner both may lead additional evidences reply has already been submitted by petitioner to altered charges - In addition it would be open for petitioner to recall and rectos examine prosecution witnesses if he desires in light of alteration in charges - After conclusion of evidence in this manner prosecution would be entitled to submit additional prosecution brief to be followed by opportunity to petitioner to submit defense brief - Then enquiring officer shall submit report for appropriate orders - During pendency of this petition petitioner retired in year and enquiry has remained stayed in view of order of this Court - Competent authority is directed to make all endeavor to conclude enquiry in accordance with Rules at earliest within period of six months – Petition disposed off
As a bank workmen employee, you generally have the right to challenge the enquiry officer’s report if you believe it was conducted improperly or if there were procedural irregularities. The enquiry officer’s report is a crucial document in disciplinary proceedings, and if it is found to be flawed, biased, or not in accordance with the rules governing departmental enquiries, you can raise objections or appeals against it.
Specifically, you can challenge the enquiry officer’s report on the following grounds: - If the report was based on evidence that was improperly collected or was incomplete. - If there were violations of the principles of natural justice, such as not being given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to present your defense. - If the report was prepared without following the prescribed procedures or was influenced by bias. - If the report contains factual inaccuracies or is otherwise legally unsustainable.
It is important to note that the enquiry process is governed by specific rules, and amendments or alterations to charges during the enquiry do not automatically invalidate the proceedings, provided they are made in accordance with the rules and with proper notice (!) (!) (!) .
Therefore, if you find that the enquiry officer’s report was not properly conducted or was flawed, you can challenge or appeal against it through the prescribed departmental or administrative channels, or in appropriate legal forums, depending on the rules applicable to your employment.
By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of memo dated 15/12/2010, the charge sheet, stated to be amended charge sheet.
2. Facts necessary for decision of the controversy involved in this petition are that while the petitioner was posted and working as Range Officer, Lakhanpur, District – Ambikapur, a departmental enquiry was instituted by issuance of charge sheet dated 11/07/2008. As many as two charges were leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. An enquiry officer was appointed, who collected evidence and thereafter, presenting officer on behalf of the prosecution submitted prosecution brief to the enquiry officer on 14/10/2010. At this stage, a charge sheet dated 15/12/2010 was issued to the petitioner, termed and styled as amended charge sheet. It is this charge sheet which is under challenge before this Court.
3. Sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have acted beyond the authority in issuing a fresh charge sheet on the same allegations of misconduct, while the earlier enquiry is on the verge of completion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the enquiry report has been submitted, it is no longer permissible to again issue a fresh charge sheet and thereby institute a departmental enquiry de novo. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and anr., (2014) 10 SCC 589.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the submissions are swayed by the form of amendment in the existing charge sheet. He submits, referring to the averments made in the return that what has actually been done is that only alteration/amendment in the existing charge sheet against the petitioner has been made during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, which is not prohibited under the governing rules or procedure. He submits that the enquiry reached only up to the stage of submission of prosecution brief by the prosecution. What has been called as enquiry report, is not an enquiry report in the eye of law. Till the date of issuance of impugned memo of amended charge sheet, no enquiry report was prepared, much less submitted by the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority. Learned State counsel submitted that the enquiry is being continued, though with certain amendments in the existing charge sheet. Memo impugned, only for convenience, is in the nature of an amended charge sheet which not only incorporates the charges already levelled against the petitioner but also certain amendments made therein which instead of being issued separately, have been covered in amended article of charge followed by statement of allegations. Learned counsel for the State clarifies that it is not a de novo enquiry at all. The amended charge is only a part of pending enquiry against the petitioner and nothing more. On the aspect of power to issue fresh charges, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Binod Chandra Mazumdar v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Works and Supply, New Delhi and anr., AIR 1960 Pun 147. Learned counsel for the State also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Braja Kishore Das v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1965 Ori 183 to contend that in the absence of there being any express or implied bar under the law, it was always open for the disciplinary authority or the authority higher to the disciplinary authority to amend the charge sheet and that in the wake of such amendment, the delinquent employee would be granted sufficient opportunity to file additional reply and additional evidence, if any, or seek re-cross examination of prosecution witness who have already been examined to rebut the additional charges broug
