The court emphasized the importance of integrity in the judiciary and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

ORDER :

Heard.

1. Instant petition is against the order dated 30/01/2006 whereby the order of removal from service has been passed in respect of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Grade-III and was discharging his duties as an Execution Clerk in the District Court, Bilaspur.

2. (i)The petitioner was issued with the charge sheet by the District Judge, Bilaspur with allegation that while he was posted as Criminal Reader in the Court of Shri D.N. Shukla, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in between period 9/06/1997 to 3/09/1998 he received the property worth Rs.1450/- from different Police Stations and did not deposit in the Malkhana. Similarly, while he was posted in the court of J.M.F.C. (Shri G.S. Netam) Bilaspur from 4/02/1998 to 6/02/1999 he again received properties from different Police Stations worth Rs.8744/-and did not deposit into the Malkhana. Thereby total he received properties amounting to 10,194/- and did not deposit it in the Malkhana. Consequently, it leads to criminal breach of trust.

(ii) Further charges against the petitioner were that during his tenure as an Execution Clerk, he did not deposit the criminal cases in the record room and they were bundled and hidden in the waste papers, thereby failed to discharge his job. Both allegations amounted to breach of duty as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Conduct Rules, 1965') and major penalty of removal under section 10-B of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was imposed. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension in an earlier case and during his suspension tenure, he received the subsequent charge sheet. After issuance of the charge sheet, the reply was filed wherein all the adverse allegations were denied and he sought for departmental enquiry. Accordingly, departmental enquiry was ordered which commenced on 9/05/2001. During the enquiry, the petitioner abjured all his allegations and the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner to be proved and was found guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules, 1965.

3. Acting on such report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority served enquiry report upon the petitioner and he was given opportunity of hearing to make his submission. Thereafter, his services were removed by the disciplinary authority. Subsequently, instead of preferring a departmental appeal, revision was preferred before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Chhattisgarh. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and he was intimated about the decision. Both such orders are under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officers were frequently changed which shows the respondent authorities were acting in a prejudicial manner without application of mind. He would submit that the Presiding Judge i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge was conducting the enquiry and he held bias and subsequently as a matter of time since it was changed without the consent of the petitioner which is also illegal. He further submits that the enquiry proceeding would show that during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was completely swayed with a predetermined mind in the backdrop of the fact that other enquiries of the like nature were pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has suffered a suspension on that count too. Therefore, no independent appreciation of evidence was done by the Enquiry Officer. Referring to the statement of the witness, he would submit that the statement would clearly show that the deposit of certain amount in the Malkhana and the time gap cannot be attributed to the petitioner, therefore the wrong finding of fact was arrived. He further submits that the allega