gH‘SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CGJ WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 3&5 [we \\ mm BENCH U.P. Shanna, S/o Late Shri Samaru Prasad Sharma, Aged about 57 years, Manager (Suspended), Chhattisgarh Civil Supplics Corporation Limited, District Offlcc, Raipur (CG), R/o MD—35, Housing Board Colony, Kota, Raipur (CG.) PETITIONER VERSUS IV Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, Bal Ashram Parisar, Opposite District Court, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (CG.) Shri Sandccp Agrawal, ”W RESPONDENTS Enquiry OlTiccr, Chhaltisgavrh SLate Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Ba] Ashram Parisar, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (CG.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226,_C‘ONSTITUTION OF INDIA. / / H Ag) AFKJ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (S) NO.415 OF 2011 Corporation Limited & Another (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present :- Shri MRS. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner, ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 5‘ day of March, 201 1) 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks quashment of the departmental enquiry proceedings, which has been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation ‘Limited (for short “the Corporation”), being conducted by the respondent No2 in relation to the misappropriation, which has been taken place at Issue Centre, Kunkuri, District—Jashpur in Bilaspur Division. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant on 12-03-1975. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant, Assistant Manger, Deputy Manager and finally to the post’of Manager by order dated 07-07—2005 (Annexure P/4) and posted at headquarters, Raipur. 't Earlier, the petitioner was posted at Bilaspur in the year 1995i After formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was transferred to the headquarters by order dated 18-04-2001 and since then, the petitioner was working at Raipur. According to the petitioner, some alleged misappropriation took place in the financial year 2004—05 and 2005-06 in Issue Centre, Kunkuri, District— 7 i PETITIONER U.P. Sharma Versus RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Civil Suppiies Jashpur in Bilaspur Division. The said fact was brought into to the knowledge of the higher officials by the then District Manager, Shri Vijay Sharma by letter dated 25-07-2005 (Annexure P/6). On basis of the said letter, charge sheet was issued in the year 2005 and enquiry was initiated against three officials namely DP. Suryawanshi (Junior Assistant, Kunkuri), J.P. Pandey (tn—charge District Manager in the relevant period) and Vijay Sharma (District Manager, Jashpur since 05-07—2005 to 17—10-2005). In the year 2006, departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated against Praveen Sharma, who was working as Assistant Accounts Officer and posted at headquarters at Raipur, who was the ln-charge of the D Bilaspur Division also. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the 'i Corporation sent a letter to the Economic Offences Wing, which was investigating the crime. ln response to the letter, the Economic Offences Wing, a note sheet dated 24—05-2006 was put for approval of the reply before the Director of the Corporation. In that note sheet, the Managing Director has made a note that “sh wt Em? an sh shim rm craft :rsd‘ tail that id 4. On the basis of said notings, the charge sheet dated 14—02-2008 (Annexure P/8) was issued against the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner was never having the charge of Bilaspur Division r during the relevant period. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25-09-2010 by denying the charges leveled against him and also stated that he was never having the charge of Bilaspur Division during the relevant period. The respondent authorities without considering the reply of the petitioner, are continuing with the enquiry proceedings. In the meantime, on account of some criminal offence with regard to District Mahasamund, the petitioner \was arrested on 02-08-2008 and he was in judicial custody till t \K \ 24-2-2009. After releasing on baiL the petitioner made several approaches for getting the relevant documents, but the same does not fructify. 5. lnitiaHy, Shri M.N. Prasad Rao was appointed as enquiry officer‘ However, on account of objection raised by the petitioner on the ground that Shri Rao himself was involved in the'misappropriation case, the enquiry officer was changed. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case of misappropriation, which took place during the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06. Even, proper documents have not been supplied to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned action of the b respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Thus, this petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that issue of charge sheet, was on the basis that the petitioner was posted during the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06 is factually incorrect, as the petitioner was posted in the head office at Raipur during that period. On perusal of the charge sheet, it appears that the charge sheet was not framed that the petitioner was posted at the place, but on ' the basis that he was working in the headquarter and was posted at Raipur. Thus, the contention of the petitioner as aforestated is rejected and further this is the subject matter of the enquiry asto whether the petitioner was in any way liabie/responsible or not. 8. The Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. A.N. Saxena1 observed as under:- “6. lnthe first place, we cannot, but confess our astonishment at the impugned order passed by the tribunal, In a case like this the tribunal, we feel, should have been very careful before granting stay in a disciplinary proceeding at an interiocutory 1 (1992) 3 SCC 124 stage. The imputations made against the respondent were extremely serious and the facts alleged, if proved, wouid have established misconduct and misbehaviour lt is surprising that without even a counter being filed. at an interim stage, the tribunal without giving any reasons and without apparently considering whetherthe memorandum of charges deserved to be enquired into or not, granted a stay of disciplinary proceedings as it has done. If the disciplinary proceedings in such serious matters are stayed so lightly as the tribunal appears to have done, it would be extremely difficult to bring any wrong- doer to bookHWe have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order ofthetribunal and we directthatthe disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in terms of the charge—sheet dated March 13, 1989 shall be proceeded with according to law. in fact, we would suggest that disciplinary proceedings ‘should be proceeded with as early as possible and with utmost zeal, 9. The Supreme Court in Union of lndia and Others v. Upendra Singhz observed as under: 4. When the matter went back to the Tribunal, it went into the correctness of the charges on the basis of the material produced by the respondent and quashed the charges holding that the charges do not indicate any corrupt motive or any culpability on the part of the respondent. We must say, we are not a little surprised atthe course adopted by the Tribunal. ln its order dated September 10, 1992 this Court specifically drew attention to the observations in A.N. Saxena that the Tribunal ought not to interfere at an interlocutory stage and yet the Tribunal chose to interfere on the basis of the material which was yet to be produced at the inquiry. In short, the Tribunal undertook the inquiry which ought to be held by the disciplinary authority (or the inquiry officer appointed by him) and found that the charges are nottrue,lt may be recalled that the iurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunalis akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the principles, norms and the constraints Which apply tothe saidjurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal ...... ? (1994) 3 soc 357 10. In District Forest Officer v. R. Rajamanickam and Anothera the Supreme Court observed as under: 11. This Court in G.P. Srivas v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others“, after relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court, observed as under : }0}/ 2. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we find that the Tribunal was not justified under law to interfer with the correctness of the charges leveled against the delinquent officer. “13. The Iaw is well settled by a series of decisions that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice when the departmental proceedings are already in progress, as the show cause notice or charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. (See Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore7, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharmag and Union of lndia and Another Satyanarayanag) Gowri Ramesh Kumar Singh5, v. Mohd. Gulam Ghous 3gpecial Director e r 3 (2000) 9 scc 284 5 (1996) 1 SCC 327 6 (2004) 3 scc 440 7 (2001) 10 scc 639 8 (1987) 2 scc 179 9 (2006) 12 soc 28 4 WP (S) No.344 of 2009 (decided on 22-3—2010) 12. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. v. Kunisetty Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /