IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice in the termination of the petitioner's service, particularly in relation to charge no.8, and the court's decision not to remand the matter for a fresh decision on the charge, as other serious charges were found to be proved and not required to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay S. Agrawal J.) :

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, questioning, the legality and propriety of the order dated 22/11/2019 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.4835 of 1997, whereby, the order dated 13/12/1996 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of his termination from service passed by the disciplinary authority on 23/09/1994 has been upheld while dismissing the petition. Parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the learned Single Judge.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Sunil Sharma, who was appointed as Lower Division Clerk and was performing his duty as a Deposition Writer in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-II at Mahasamund, was placed under suspension vide order dated 01/10/1992 and thereupon, a chargesheet was served upon him on 14/11/1992. In the said chargesheet, as many as 08 charges were framed against him by the respondent no.2-District and Sessions Judge, Raipur and vide order dated 16/11/1992 (Annexure P-3), he was directed to submit his reply within a period of 15 days. The petitioner has submitted his reply (Annexure P-4) on 23/11/1992, but it was not found to be satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, who has, therefore, appointed the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur as an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 25/11/1992 while the Second Deputy Clerk of Court, Raipur as a presenting officer. During enquiry, the petitioner has moved an application on 08/01/1993 praying for the engagement of a defence lawyer which was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on 06/02/1993. After the rejection of his application, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and recorded the statements of prosecution as well as the defence witnesses, wherein all the charges were found to be proved, except charges no.3 and 8, and accordingly, the enquiry report (Annexure P-7) was submitted on 18/11/1993 before the disciplinary authority, who, however, though concurred with the said report, but has shown his disagreement with regard to the finding in relation to charge no.8 and thereby, issued a show cause notice (Annexure P-6) vide its order dated 01/09/1994 as to why he should not be removed from his service and, the petitioner was accordingly called upon to submit his reply, who in turn, has submitted his reply (Annexure P-8) on 19/09/1994 denying all the charges as framed while detailing the circumstances how the case has been cooked up by Shri A.P. Shrivastava, the in-charge Additional District Judge, in order to victimize him. After considering the said reply, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 23/09/1994 (Annexure P-9) has dismissed him from service without disqualification from future government employment which has been affirmed further by the appellate authority vide its order dated 13/12/1996 (Annexure P-11) in appeal preferred by him.

3. It was the contention of the petitioner that since the aforesaid orders have been passed without specifying any reasons in arriving to such a conclusion, in as much as, in violation of the principles of natural justice as the charge no.8 was found to be proved by the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without providing any opportunity of hearing in violation of the Rule 15(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1966”). Further contention of the petitioner is that during enquiry he had requested to engage a defence counsel but was refused, therefore, he has been denied the right of fair defence as after the refusal of his said request another application made for appointment of a co-worker was also rejected. It is alleged further that since none of the charges so framed were serious in nature, therefore, the capital punishment as