RESERVED
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33164 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Chitranshi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Swarn Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.N. Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankur Tandon learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and perused the records.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P., Lucknow (respondent no. 3) terminating the services of the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 11 Lakhs and odd for causing loss to the department.
The basis of challenge is that all the departmental enquiries initiated against the petitioner were dropped as no decision was taken for a period of approximately 4 years after submission of the enquiry reports. For the departmental enquiry which was concluded in the year 2004, it was not open for respondents to take decision for making recovery or passing the order of termination. Further it is submitted that the enquiry officer did not give any reason for recording its conclusion of proof of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
Reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramesh Mohan Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others 1 to submit that mere fact that the delinquent did not participate in the enquiry would not imply that the charge of misconducts would stand established. The enquiry officer has to evaluate the evidence and record its finding even in absence of the delinquent.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, places reliance on 1 2015 (7) ADJ 722 (DB) the averments in the counter affidavit to support the order of the disciplinary authority.
To appreciate the controversy at hand, certain relevant facts of the matter are to be noted hereunder:-
The record indicates that a suspension order dated 14.5.2002 was passed in contemplation of the departmental enquiry with regard to the purchase of 'wheat' in the year 2000-01 while the petitioner was posted in the Purchase Centre, Nari Bari, Allahabad. He was provisionally reinstated vide order dated 20.7.2002 subject to conclusion of the departmental enquiry. A charge sheet dated 27.11.2004 was served on him on 9.10.2006 and the enquiry report dated 30.8.2008 was submitted.
Another suspension order dated 10.7.2003 was passed for irregularities in the purchase of 'paddy' in the year 2002-03 in Purchase Centre, Pratapgarh Sadar. The charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 13.5.2004, noticing the fact that the petitioner was continuing under the interim order dated 8.10.2003 passed by this Court. The enquiry report was submitted on 22.12.2004. Third enquiry was initiated on 21.6.2004 in view of the reports of confiscation of huge amount of 'wheat' and 'rice' of the government quota from private persons. The charge sheet dated 27.7.2004 was served and the enquiry report was submitted on 30.3.2007. Fourth enquiry was instituted on 12.7.2005 for the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the year 2003-04 while posted as Incharge of the Purchase Centre, Pratapgarh Sadar. The charge sheet dated 7.12.2005 was served on the petitioner and the enquiry report dated 27.11.2008 was submitted.
The aforesaid four departmental enquiries were culminated with the passing of the order dated 25th June, 2009.
First submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority was not empowered to consider all enquiry reports together to arrive at the findings of guilt of the petitioner. The contention is that the enquiry instituted in the year 2004 was dropped. Relevant is to note at the outset that enquiry reports were submitted by the enquiry officers in each of the four enquiries, it is difficult to accept that any of the enquiry proceedings were dropped.
Further, as far as the cumulative decision of the disciplinary authority considering all the enquiry reports is concerned, it appears that the aforesaid four enquiries were going on almost simultaneously. When the first enquiry which was initiated on the allegations in the suspension order dated 14.5.2002 was going on, other two enquiries were initiated with the issuance of the charge sheets dated 13.5.2004 and 27.11.2004, before proceedings in the same could be concluded another charge sheet dated 7.12.2005 was issued in the fourth enquiry for the irregularities of the year 2003-04. Last enquiry report was submitted on 27.11.2008. It appears that thereafter, giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the said enquiry report, decision was taken by considering findings of all enquiry reports together.
No infirmity can be found in the action of the disciplinary authority in taking decision on consideration of the four enquiry reports together, which were conducted over the period of four years. It is, thus, evident that when the first enquiry report dated 22.12.2004 was submitted, other two enquiries were pending. It, therefore, cannot be said that the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 13.5.2004 were dropped. No such decision could be brought before the Court.
As far as the second submission assailing the reasoning given by the enquiry officers to prove charges, pertinent is to go through all the enquiry reports which have been filed alongwith the counter affidavit as Annexures C.A.-'4', C.A.-'7', C.A.-'14' and C.A.-'27'.
First enquiry report (C.A.-'7') dated 22.12.2004 contains discussion on six charges and records the findings returned thereon by the enquiry officer. The said enquiry report (page '46' of the counter affidavit) states that the petitioner did not submit any report/explanation to the charge sheet though in a Writ Petition No. 27471 of 2004 filed by him, a direction was issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. It is also indicated therein that the said report was prepared on the basis of the documentary evidences adduced before the enquiry officer. To substantiate its findings that the charges were proved, the documentary evidences presented in the enquiry were evaluated by the enquiry officer. In the opinion of the Court, the findings of fact returned by the enquiry officer after appreciation of evidence on record cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A persual of the second enquiry report dated 30.3.2007 C.A.-'27' (pages 103-121) of the counter affidavit shows that the charges were discussed in detail in the light of the evidences and the reply dated 21.8.2004 submitted by the petitioner. Though it is recorded by the enquiry officer that the petitioner initially did not appear before the enquiry officer and only on one date i.e. 27.3.2006, he appeared to make a request in writing to grant time to submit the documentary evidences in defence. Again letter dated 5.4.2006 was given by the petitioner to seek further time, inspite of sufficient time being granted, he did not submit any evidence in his support. Two supplementary charge sheets served on the petitioner during the course of said enquiry were also taken into consideration to arrive at the findings of guilt which cannot be interfered in this writ petition.
With regard to the third enquiry report dated 30.8.2008 (C.A.-'4', pages 37-39) pertinent is to note that the said enquiry report though is cursory in nature, inasmuch as, therein the charges have not been discussed in detail. However, it is indicated that the petitioner had succeeded in avoiding service of the charge sheet dated 27.11.2004 till 9.10.2006 and while receiving the said charge sheet, he put a note that he had no faith in the enquiry officer and that a final report had been submitted by the police in the investigation on the allegations made therein. As the enquiry officer was not changed, he provided due opportunity to the petitioner to furnish his reply by putting him to notice vide communications dated 21.11.2007 and 26.5.2008. Despite notices, no reply was furnished by the petitioner and as such it was opined by the enquiry officer that the petitioner did not want to cooperate and in absence of denial he had admitted the charges levelled against him.
Be that as it may, for the fact that the charges in other three enquiries conducted against the petitioner were found proved, mere fact that the enquiry report dated 30.8.2008 is not exhaustive, inasmuch as, the enquiry officer did not evaluate the evidences to arrive at its conclusion, would not make any difference.
Lastly, the enquiry report dated 27.11.2008 (C.A.-'14', pages 68-73 of the counter affidavit) is a detail report comprising of discussion on the evidences against the petitioner. Noteworthy is the fact that the said enquiry also proceeded ex-parte and the petitioner did not even furnish any reply to the charge sheet, which contain the details of the evidences against him in the Article of imputation of charges.
The conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer on analysis of the documentary evidences adduced before it, therefore, cannot be interfered.
Above all the learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring any infirmity in the enquiry reports apart from the ground that in one of the enquiry, the enquiry officer did not appreciate the evidence on record to support its findings.
In view of the discussion made above, having carefully perused all the enquiry reports, this Court is not convinced with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry reports are lacking in discussion on the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer or that the findings of the enquiry officer is without any evidence. The scope of interference in the departmental enquiry in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited.
It is not open for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence to take a different view from that what has been taken by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. Only in case of no evidence or illegality or perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer or the decision of the disciplinary authority apparent on the face of the record, the High Court can interfere.
Reference may be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Ashok Kumar Arora 2 and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others 3.
No other point has been pressed.
No good ground could be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no interference as such can be made.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Brijesh (Sunita Agarwal, J.) 2 1997 (3) SCC 72 3 1995 (6) SCC 749