ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging legality and propriety of the order dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) by which services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of misconduct of causing loss to the vehicle on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner’s husband.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-Arun Kumar Banjare expired, therefore, his wife namely Sandhya Joshi Banjare was arrayed as party to the case vide this Court's order dated 24.08.2022.

3. On account of the accident on 24.01.2017 a show cause notice was issued. The deceased employee submitted reply to the show cause notice denying the allegation made against him contending that the incident took place on 24.01.2017 at about 9 O'clock, as all of a sudden, he faced dizziness, which caused accident. This was not happened because of his negligence or rash driving. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, therefore, the Collector Mahasamund directed for enquiry and charge sheet dated 29.04.2017 was issued to him, in which, following charges were levelled:

^^vkjksi Øekad

¼1½ vkids }kjk fnukad 24-01-2017 dks egkleqan uxj ds Hkhrj cjkS.Mk pkSd ds lehi tkucw>dj ykijokghiwoZd okgu Øekad lhŒthŒ 02&2617 ¼ek'kZy½ pykdj bjknru vf/kdkfj;ksa dks pksfVy djus nq?kZVukxzLr dh x;h ftlds QyLo:i rhu O;fDr;ksa dks pksV igqaph ftuesa ls ,d dk gkFk QsDpj gqvk rFkk okgu dh VwV&QwV ls 'kklu dks jkf'k 13]800@& :i;s {kfr igqapkbZ x;hA

¼2½ vkidk mDr d`R; NRrhlxढ+ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1968 ds fu;e 3 ds vuq:i u gksdj drZO; ds Áfr xaHkhj ykijokgh ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk Li"V |ksrd gSA vr% vki mDr fu;eksa dk ikyu u dj vius dk;Z ds Áfr drZO; ijk;.k ,oa lfu"B ugha jgrs gq, vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ds Hkkxh cu x, gSA**

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the entire evidence brought on record. The report has been submitted on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondents and even no reason has been assigned to disbelieve the statement of the delinquent employee, therefore, there is complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded jurisdiction by proposing punishment of penal action to be taken against deceased employee. He would further submit that the Enquiry Officer has only relied upon the evidence brought by the prosecution witnesses and has not given any consideration to the statement of the deceased employee. He would further submit that the Enquiry Officer has ignored vital evidence brought on record, therefore, based on non-consideration of material on record, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to proving of the charges suffers from perversity, illegality which deserve to be interfered by this Court. He would further submit that punishment imposed upon the deceased employee was disproportionate and even if it is held that the petitioner was negligent towards discharging his duties, still, the punishment imposed upon the deceased employee is harsh. He would further submit that the Doctor has not been examined during the enquiry proceedings or any material has been brought on record, still it has been recorded that the deceased employee was not suffering from epilepsy, is incorrect and perverse finding. Thus, the enquiry report is perverse, based on non-consideration of material evidence, as such, the same is liable to be quashed and on the basis of perverse enquiry report and non-compliance of the principle of natural justice in the enquiry proceedings, the punishment order deserves to be set aside by this Court. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has not given any opportunity to the deceased employee to engage the defence assistant, therefore, also the enquiry proceeding is bad in law