Departmental enquiries must adhere to principles of natural justice and require substantial evidence for findings of guilt; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.

C A V Order

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.4/Director, Directorate, Farmer Welfare & Agriculture Development Bhopal (M.P.), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as surveyor in the Department of Agriculture in the year 1982 and was posted at Sarangarh, District Raigarh (M.P. / now C.G.). Subsequently, on 06.02.1985, the Joint Director Bilaspur issued an order of suspension of the petitioner on the ground that he had produced forged certificate of passing Higher Secondary School Examination in the year 1981 showing his date of birth as 05.07.1960 instead of 02.05.1949, but since no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner within 45 days of the suspension, the Joint Director vide order dated 01.04.1985 revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner. On 01.04.1985 itself, the Joint Director issued another order again, suspending the petitioner and forwarded the charge sheet, i.e., article of charge dated 28.03.1985, statement of imputations of misconduct and list of documents in support of the charge and the same were received by the petitioner on 04.04.1985. The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement within 15 days thereof, which was filed by the petitioner, deny charges levelled against him. On 26.06.1985, the Joint Director issued an order appointing himself as an Enquiry Officer and one Mr. C.J. Choithani as Presenting Officer and the notice was issued to the petitioner to attend the departmental enquiry, which was fixed for five times and the same was attended by the petitioner. On 15.01.1987, the Joint Director revoked the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner in service vide order dated 15.01.1987. Subsequently, in enquiry report, the petitioner was held guilty and vide order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner was removed from his service. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner was alleged to have committed murder of Mahesh and Jasram, after granting bail in that case, he tried to report his duty in the department in the year 1992, but he was not allowed to join as he was already removed from service. On 12.10.1992, the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 15.09.1989 before the Director of Agriculture Bhopal, but vide order dated 26.07.1994 (Annexure P-12), the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thereafter the petitioner filed OA No.2189/1995 before the State Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur and after bifurcation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the said application was transferred before this Court and re- registered as WPS No.4785/2008. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure P-13) and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his appeal / representation before the appellate authority and vide order dated 05.11.2018, the appeal of the petitioner was again dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.66/2019 before this Court on the ground that the petitioner’s appeal has again been dismissed by non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Thereafter, appeal was again heard by respondent No.4 and again dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.03.2019, which was served to the petitioner vide covering memo (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.4 as well as the order dated 15.09.1989 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only charge levelled against the peti