Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J
Shiv Balak Singh, S/o Shri Mathura Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WPS No. 3235 of 2014
Decided on : 29-02-2024
Enquiry Officer - Departmental Enquiry - CISF Rules, 2001 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - MV Bijlani Vs. UOI & others, 2006 SCC (L&S) 919; Moni Shankar Vs. UOI & another; (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 819; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 398; WPS No.4583/2012 in the matter of Rishi Sharma Vs. State of CG and others; WPS No.1384/2014 in the case of Rupesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of CG and others; WA No. 362/2023 in the matter of Satan Kumar Dubey Vs. Union of India and others - Supreme Court decisions and High Court orders referenced in the judgment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable at CISF Unit BSP, Bhilai, was served with a charge sheet for misbehaviour and assault. The departmental enquiry found him guilty and imposed compulsory retirement. The petitioner challenged the orders through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Enquiry Officer did not act independently and impartially. The court set aside the impugned orders on the technical ground of non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, directing the petitioner's reinstatement with certain reservations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and validity of the departmental enquiry, the imposition of compulsory retirement, and the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in various Supreme Court decisions and High Court orders, emphasizing the need for an independent and impartial Enquiry Officer, the observance of natural justice, and the appointment of a Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with certain reservations.
ORDER :
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4 whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service with immediate effect on normal pension and 3/4th of retirement gratuity and granted only subsistence allowance for the suspension period from 20.11.2009 (245 days). The petitioner has also called in question the legality and validity of the orders dated 11.9.2010 (Annexure P/2) and 18.3.2011 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondents No. 3 & 2 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and revision respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that while the petitioner was working as Head Constable at Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit BSP, Bhilai on 9.12.2009 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet in respect of misbehaviour with and assault on Jaswant Singh, Inspector, CISF Unit, Bhilai, to which the petitioner in his reply categorically denied the charges on 16.12.2009. Being not satisfied with the petitioner’s reply, departmental enquiry was conducted against him by Shri Ajit Singh, Inspector who was an officer of the rank of Shri Jaswant Singh. The Enquiry Officer without following the prescribed procedure in respect of conducting departmental enquiry and without considering the defence and grounds raised by the petitioner, conducted the same in violation of principal of natural justice and held the charges proved against him, and submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 19.4.2010. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority having supplied copy of enquiry report to the petitioner on 11.5.2010 sought his representation thereon within 15 days which was duly submitted by the petitioner on 15.5.2010 categorically pointing out therein the illegality and perversity committed in the enquiry.
The disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P/1) without considering the submission and grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation, only relying upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment on the petitioner of compulsory retirement with immediate effect on normal pension and 3/4th retirement gratuity. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 11.9.2010 (Annexure P/2) and further, the petitioner’s revision was also dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure P/3). Hence this petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
And
Quash the order dated 11.09.2010 passed by the Dy. Inspector General, CISF, BSP, Bhilai (Respondent-3) by which reject/dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 22.07.2010
And
Quash and cancel the order dated 22.07.2010 passed by Sr. Commandant, CISF, BSP, Bhilai (Respondent-4) by which the petitioner, who was head Constable, Security Force No.851380490, was made to retire compulsorily with immediate effect on normal pension and 3/4th of retirement, gratuity and was also ordered that period from 20.11.2009, total 245 days, will be deemed to be period of suspension and he will be entitled only for subsistence allowance.
10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits and back wages.
10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in respect of the departmental enquiry.
10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very initiation of enquiry against the petitioner is malafide and result of bias under the influence of Inspector Jaswant Singh who had started harassing the petitioner since 16.1
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an independent and impartial Enquiry Officer, the observance of natural justice, and the appointment of a Presenting Officer in....
Disciplinary inquiry vitiated if Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and prosecutor, records adverse witness statements without cross-examination, relies on unfurnished reports, creating r....
The non-appointment of a presenting officer in a departmental enquiry vitiates the enquiry and violates the principle of natural justice.
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedure for conducting an enquiry and the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary p....
The absence of Presenting Officers in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of dismissal orders and reinstatement of affected personnel.
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
