Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
Mahadeo Katulkar S/o Late Shri Laxman Katulkar - Petitioner
Versus
Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Its Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 2323 of 2017
Decided On : 06-10-2017
Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 – Section 11 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Validity of initiation of departmental enquiry – By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of initiation of departmental enquiry and has prayed for quashing of charge sheet issued by 3rd respondent by the order of 1st respondent. – Held, Articles of charges, show that the petitioner is alleged to have used filthy abusive and unparliamentary language against large number of subordinate Class-IV employees details of which have been given in the statement of imputation of misconduct which show that there are specific allegation of the filthy language used by the petitioner against specific employee. – The list of document contains affidavit statement of the employees as also preliminary enquiry report dated 23.8.2016 submitted by the Registrar (Inspection & Enquiry) of the High Court. – The said preliminary enquiry report has also been placed on record as Annexure P-9 prepared by responsible officer of the Institution. – A bare perusal of the said report shows that when complaint were made against the petitioner, before initiating departmental enquiry, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Inspection & Enquiry). – The statement of the employees who have alleged use of filthy and abusive language against them by the petitioner were recorded. – Those statements have been specifically dealt with in the preliminary enquiry and based on this preliminary enquiry report, the decision was taken by respondent No.1 to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. – The petitioners stand taken during preliminary enquiry and in reply to charge sheet is itself a matter of enquiry. – The allegation do not pertain to performance of any judicial function by the petitioner. – It is essentially a matter of factual enquiry by recording evidence and appreciation thereof as to whether the allegation of using filthy and abusive language by the petitioner against several employees are motivated or not in the backdrop of events stated by the petitioner, which by itself, would be a matter of enquiry during the enquiry proceedings. – The arguments based on provisions contained in Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is misconceived in law. – Petitioner has gone to the extent of making allegation against all the respondents officers of the Registry as also the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department. – It is not a case where the petitioner was making enquiry into complaint against various appointments made by these officers so as to say that these officers had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. Moreover, the decision to institute departmental enquiry against the petitioner was not taken by respondents No. 4 to 6 but by the High Court. – The allegation of malafide are therefore absolutely baseless, without material and if I may say so, callous and reckless. – Petition Dismissed
Heard.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of initiation of departmental enquiry and has prayed for quashing of charge sheet issued by 3rd respondent by the order of 1st respondent.
Vide impugned charge sheet, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner on two articles of charges which are reproduced as below :
ARTICLE OF CHARGES
“1. X X X
2. During your tenure of posting as referred above, you had used filthy abusive and unparliamentary language in the name mother and sister against your subordinate Class-IV employees namely Shri Mukesh Kumar Razak, Shri Ajay Mourya, Shri Vikky Chouhan, Ku. Hemlata Yadav, Shri Sohan Sinha, Shri Narayan Prasad Harinkhede, Shri Shyam Lal Arya on many occasions and threatened to remove them from the services, thereby, caused mental torture and harassment to your subordinate employees.
3. You directed the Nazir not to allow Shri Mukeh Kumar Razak and Ku. Hemlata Yadav to put their signatures on the attendance register.”
The gravamen of charges against the petitioner is that during the period of his posting as Judge, Family Court Dhamtari, he used filthy, abusive, unparliamentary language against seven of his subordinate Class-IV employees on many occasions and threatened to remove them from service, thereby causing mental torture and harassment. It is further alleged that he abused Ku. Hemlata Yadav, Peon with filthy language (details of which are given in the statement of imputation of misconduct). The petitioner is also alleged to have abused Narayan Prasad Harinkede, Driver, using very filthy language (details of which are given in statement of imputation of misconduct). It was also alleged that the petitioner also abused Vikky Chouhan, Sonal Sinha, Ajay Mourya and Shyamlal Arya using filthy language (details of which are given in statement of imputation of misconduct).
Further submission is that he directed Nazir not to allow Mukesh Kumar Rajak and Hemlata Yadav to sign attendance register. Along with the charge sheet in Annexure-I, details of imputation of misconduct have been given. The list of documents and list of witnesses are given in Annexures-II & Annexure-III respectively.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to averments made in the petition and the grounds urged therein, canvassed before this Court that initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner is an attempt to forestall the enquiry into various complaint of irregular and illegal appointment. It is contended when the petitioner started enquiry into complaint of irregular appointments at the behest of the officer against whom allegation are leveled, the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner at the instance of respondents No. 4 to 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, enquiry against the petitioner has been initiated to provide protection and patronage to those Class-IV employees against whom complaint have been made and is motivated, predetermined at the instance of respondents No. 4 to 6. In order to support his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to number of charge sheets issued against the petitioner, to submit that in order to harass and victimize the petitioner series of charges and enquiry have been hurled against him at the behest of respondents No. 4 to 6. One of the submissions to call in question the very institution of departmental enquiry is that in view of protective provisions contained in Section 11 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, the petitioner is protected against any victimization by initiation of proceedings on the ground of any disclosure or allegation of corruption or willful misuse of power/discretion.
3. Before proceeding to deal with the submission on the face of material contained in the charge sheet and other connected documents placed on record, it is apposite to refer to various
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
