JUDGMENT :

RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.

1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of Jiyaram Kushwaha (original petitioner) challenging the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4645 of 2007, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that, originally, the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed by Jiya Ram Kushwaha, who died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives were brought on record. Late Jiya Ram Kushwaha was working as Sanitary Inspector in Nagar Palika Parisad, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Article of charge was framed by the respondent No. 5 on 26.06.2003 and a departmental enquiry was commenced. The specific charges framed against the deceased employee are reproduced herein-below:

“(i) On 20.02.2002, he got uploaded seven bags of cement on a tractor, which was noticed by the employees and seven bags of cement were unloaded.

(ii) On account of negligence in cleaning work, a notice was issued on 25.01.2003, but same was not replied.

(iii) On 23.06.2003, during inspection, he was found absent from his duties, and in response to notice issued in this regard, he had stated the authority that in future, do not make this type of correspondence.

(iv) On 26.06.2003, at about 4.30 p.m. he threw the keys over the superior authority and used unparliamentary language.

(v) The deceased employee demanded and accepted bribe to engage the labourers.”

3. The deceased employee replied to the charges on 22.08.2023 and denied the allegations made against him. A full-fledged enquiry was held and Enquiry Officer found charges No. 1 and 4 proved, charge No. 3 partly proved, and charges No. 2 and 5 not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of enquiry report, imposed punishment of dismissal from the service vide order dated 10.06.2004. The deceased employee preferred an appeal before the Collector and vide order dated 07.08.2006, same was allowed and matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing appropriate order afresh. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 07.08.2006, the employer preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and same was allowed vide order 14.02.2007 by setting-aside the order passed by the Collector and restoring the order of Disciplinary Authority.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, grounds were raised on behalf of the deceased employee that the order passed by the Commissioner holding the charges proved, is illegal and perverse. It was also submitted that there was contradiction in evidence with regard to the charge No. 1, which has been found proved. His next submission was that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate looking to the gravity of the misconduct. Charge No. 4 which pertains to misbehavior and using un-parliamentary language is not so serious so as to warrant imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. His next submission before the learned Single Judge was that as charge No. 3 has partly been found proved, taking a lenient view, the Commissioner ought to have dismissed the appeal, preferred by the employer.

5. The learned Single Judge considered the fact that charge No. 1 was found proved and the evidence recorded in this regard could not be rebutted. Charge No. 4 was also found proved which relates to use of un-parliamentary language and throwing key on the table of superior authority. Charge No. 3 was found partly proved. The learned Single Judge, after considering the legal position with regard to interference in the matter of the departmental enquiry, dismissed the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants in the instant appeal has raised ground that the reply to the article of charges, filed on 22.08.2003 by the deceased employee, was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Next ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that, the learned Single Judge has not consid