^'R-^-^';^:£^ 6- raiSBISAt BEa®a. AI .TABAtESB, 0.AJ ASPI.I0AST t (PBTITI0NEB) » 5IWBBH »90.^-^^ ^ ^ / _; 'i5'<^<5^y(3j Sv.Kblr.asa Terna, aged aba^'fe. 50 yaarSy son;of Shrl lalaTan Tfetaa.., Bx»B'lrs-l; Brade Glerk, Offiee of the Oolleetor»- .Ba3Eiandga0n,.^a'fc-:,l>reseat..T/o : vlllage — BaveII, Eos-fc -Tapra» Tabsll- Patan, Dlitriet -Sarga (M.P.) _WD_ 1. Tfae-State ,of •tSff&ttgii.-.'feIie:.- @C.-.8»r*,' 'BeTOaue VallEfcMt Ifaawan^ SalpOE? (8*y») 3« ©QlleetoE, c\ HIGH COVKtOV CHHATnHSGARH. BIUUEB*IHl SIIIOLB BEMCH : HOM'BLB MIM MAnnTORAMOHAII anUVASTAVAJ. p^nnoNSR RB8POHDBNTS Vfttt PettUoa Wl So. 302/2005 Sukhiram Vaina Versw* The State of Maxihya Pnadesh pww Chbaftisgcah) & otfaers ORDBR 4 POST ON W JUNE, 2010 Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge ^-"•^ r ^v^ s '*i S.. 'li J '•^-^y^,/ "^sxs^'' c9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSQARH : aiLfldBPim 8INGLB BBNCaH : HOH'BLB 8HRI NABinmA MOHAIIBHIUVASTAVAriB. PBTITIONBR RB8PONDBWT8 Wrtt Petttloa W no. 302/a0<» Sukhiraiu Venaa VCTMW Thc Stote pf Madhya Pradesh frww Chhaltisgarh) & others Aiweaance: ShriAvinash MMlua, counselfortfae petifioaer. Shri Aj^r Dwnredi, Dy. Oovt Advocate fiM'tfas^State/xcspoadeiits. ORJDBR (Passed on%_ 06.20icq 1. By fhis petitioa/the petitioncr has c^led to quesrtios tegdtty and va^ of oader dated 24.3.1988 (Aimexure A-3) passed by •fihie CoUector, REgnaiulgaon as xnodified vule orderdated 311It May, 1990 (Aaaexure A- 5) by the Goiimi^ioner/respondent No.2 imposun^ penal^ -af" coinpulsotyictueiaentfiionisemce. • ~ 2. Facte neccssaiy for adjudteation of coatroversy involved are that thc petitioner white working as~ l*t Gradc-Clcxk in fhe offioe of Block Dcvelopment Offica', was'suspcnded on 17.3.1983 an certaiaaBcgations foQowed by issuance of a chaigeshcet oa 22.8.1983 (ArinonBe A-l). A ifcpty (Anncxure A-2) was subinltted by fhe petltioncr. After appoiatment of Enqiiixy Officef,-enquiry was cptiducted, witaesses were examined. Enqiury OfiBcer subinitted his enquuy report on 29.4.1987. Based on the enquiry report; Wherem fhc ctoaixcs were fouad proved ^mast fke ^!""^~ss^' /'./^"^ .' i^'s% 1 a;i,^..?' ^*- "^aais-^' -2- -? petitioner, fhe CoUector passcd aa order, imposing najor pcnalty of disaussal fiom scmce vide order dated 24.3.1988 (Annexuro A-3). AggnsveS. by fhe said oixlcr, petitioner prcfenicd a revicw pctitiou^^^^ providcd ynder Rule 29 of tiie M.P./C.G, Civfl SenaceB (CI^siacatton, Contcol & Appeal) Rutes, 1966 (for short "ffw Rules 9f 196ff) befoBe fhie Comintesioner/respondeat No.2. The Connmissioner, thougti, uphdd the findiags of guilt, reduccd fhe peaatly fixyta disiaissd to coxupirisoiy retB'emeiit vide his order dated 31.5.1990 (Annexure A-5). 3. AssaUmg fhc order Ofpcnalty passed by fhe Disciirimaty Authority aad the order passed by the Couunissioner, Rcviewing Autfaoiity, lcamed counsel for the petrdoner submitted tfaat the entuie eaquiry is vitfated on account of several iUegalitlca and ln-cgulariti.es. Itissubautted fhat no proper chaige sheet, as required under Rule 14 (3) offhe Rutes of 1966, was issued. The cbarge isaot specific as it does aot contaai as to wfaait misconduct was coinmltted, norspecific dates Iiave been mcntioaed. No dates ofpaymea.t aud vouchers were specified in the chai^e sSacet. On review petitton beiag filed, the Reviewmg Aufhorily wrongty cainc to &e conchision fhat fhe petitioner was guBty of chargcs. The Reviewii^ Aufhority has not recorded its own reasons as to wlqr fhe chaiges were found proved. It is furfhcr eonteaded that opiaion ofHaadwriting Expert on the s^aatures shown in the vouchers was aot obtamed aad therefeie there was KO conchMwe evideace to record finding df guilt. It is also aigued fhat fhc findings ofenquiiy oflBcer are perverse. Leam.ol counscl for the petitioncr furflier contends ffiat reply subinitted by fhe petitioner diu-mg (hfi course af cnquny was not property considered. The witaesses exanuned by fhe ptosccutton havc \ . ' . \ adinitted that •Uicamount was paM by Cfaam Scwak -A.R.DesIrmiikh. -3- As fhe petittoiierwas suboBdm.ate to fhe Block Devctopaient Offlcer, he •was bovmd to reteasc thc payinent as -per directmai of fte Block Dcvetopinent OflGcer. Thcre is no ptoper oonsideration ofttie statenient of witnesses, who havc admittcd fhat fhcy dld recewe the payaicat aad vouchers were subinltted. In the departaaental enqutey, fhough 70 witnesses wcre eiilisted,"only 35 witnesses were examiued and tfaere ao explanation as to why 35 reiiiauiio^ witnesscs were given-up by prosecution. Thte resulted ,iu denial of opportunily to cross-examiae fhose un-exanuned witnesses aad to pcove tus defence. It is abo atgued fhat diinng fhe coursc of enquity, pctitknier appBed for appoiatmMit Qf co-cinployee for his assteteace, but his prayer was wroi^fy 'rejected which vitiated fhc wholc enquiiy as fhis seriousty prejudiecd tfac pctitioner in effectwefy defendiii®hjmsdf against fhe chargps. The petitioner WE not rcsponsible for distributioa of taeney to varioxis pcrsons, as the paymcnts werc aiade by the Block: Dcvclopincnt OfBcer ' and conceming GramSewak, who were not examiaed diuiag ttte caurse ofenquiiy. 4. Per contra, submission of leamed counsd fi)r fhe respondents fa fhat a propcr charge sheet was issued in accordance wlth nrics giying necessaiy detafls of the aUq;atKMis pf miscondact alM^ wititt list ctf dociuaents and witaesses. PetitKmer, after rcceivmg thc chMsge sheet, did not ratec any objection. ttat the cJUea^cswcre eithervaguc or lacklng iu specific &r particular details, but replicd to fhe samc vide his tefSy (Aimcxurc A-2). For fhe firat time, fhis Idnd of objection h^ bcea taised beforc fhis Court whlch is not tenabte. It h^ beea raised for the &st time bcfore the Court that fhe Qpinion of Handwritix^ Expert on the sigiatures was not obtain.ed. Such objcction Was apt tEdien by ttae ^5!:'"^-; i° 1&».. '" '^s^-:.... '5. -5- -^, v?^^^/' '^-^..^^:^.^'1' 6. During fh.c coTirse of hcaring, respondents wcre directed to place on record the Enqiiuy Report whieh was filcd on 25.3.2010 along witti a nieiao of submissfoa. Respoadents have abo submitted for perusal of fhfa Court, the or^malrecords ofDepartmcntal Enquuy. 7. In so fer as, pctitfoners aUegation of charge shcct bcing vague is concemed, fi'oni fhe charge sheet dated SK2Dd August, 1983 (Annexure A- I), it cannot be said that fhc charges are v^ue. "nie statement of aBegation showsthat fhe petitioner was chai^cd with the all^ation that whilc he was posted as lrt Grade Ckak ia Block- Cholsy, false payaents to fhe tune ofRs.ll,190/- were made,detaUsofwhichare mdicated in jomt report dated 8.6.1983 of S.B.Utoria, Accoimts OSBcet and SIy-i N. ' Kankrainc, Assistaat' PTojcct Ofi5cer, Distriet Rural Development Authority, Rajnandgaon. 8.A perusal of chaige sheet shows that thc aforcsaid joint Ecport dated - 8.6.1983 was attaclted along wtth Ihe charge sheet as doeuaent N6.18. A pcrusal offhe repty fflcd by the petttaonershows fhat petitioner did get • aa opportunily to go throi^h each and every altegatton. In lus repty, it ' was nowhere aUeged fhat fhe petitioaer was unabte to gi»especlfic Tepty on account of vE^ueness of charge or due to lack of specific detaUs re^nlirig cach p^ment and voucher. It is thus ctear 1Iiat fhe petitioiier • fulty understood the charges leveled agaiast him. Evcn ia the rewcw pctition filed a^inst order of pexialty, no such ground w^ Tateed. Tbe contention offhe petitioner fherefore is rgectcd. 9. A perusalof the order passed by the Revemic Aufhoirfty ie. Comniissioner shows that the Revfewing AuthorBy has recoTded reasona, fhough brief. It has beea record fhat cases ofpayinent through voucbcrs -6- ^> were cnqiurcd and signatures taffled with the or^mal sigaatuiies and even in. the absencc ofaay Handwriting Expert, Ifae signaturcs show ftaat they are foi^ed. The Rcviewing Autfaorily has also taken into consideration that persons who have been exanuaed have coiifia-mcd ttiat neifher they have s^ned in the voucheis tegister nor have itcceivcd any payment The Reviewiag Authorily is not required to record detail reasonswhilc confirmiag fhe findiTig of guUt recorded by the Discipiinary Aufhority. , 10. It is weB setfted fhat ia a dcpartmental enquiry, fhc degiiee ofpnx>fjsnot as high as ia a crumnal procecdmgs relating to aBtegatioaofcommission 6f an offcnce. It is pennissible for the Dfaciplinaiy Authonly to recoid, findiag of guilt based on prepondcrance of probabi&ties. Froia thc enquiry report as also fi?om the orderofdisciptinaiy Authority, it is elear that fhcre is aaaplc evidencc ou recoid to establish that ia setreral cases, fhe s^natures were foimd to be foiged and nuinber ofwitaesses of fhe ' prosecutkm clearly stated that fhey neifher signed nor receive aiy - payment In fhe opinion offhis Court such a finding of guffl, based ou prepondciaace of probabllities, does not saffer fium any pervBraty, aor does it caU for aay niterference by fhis Court as an AppcBate A-u&ority tp re-appreciate fheevidence onrecord aad substitute its finding in place of fhat recorded by the Dlsciplmary Aufhority. Mcrety becausc tbe aeport of Haadwrttirig Expert was not obtained, it cannot bc said that liicre was no evidence at atl to prove fhc charges. In order to hold fhc chalges ptoved, -it has been record fhat tbs or^pnal s^natitres were taBiied wifhi : the signatures found on vouchers r^ister, wtaich showed fhat signatiBres \ in the vouchcrs registered were foi^ed. Moteower, severaliratncsses ofthc prosccution, who wer& exanuned, ctearty stated fhat ffaey tieifber sigaed -7- in the voucher register nor received aay payiueat Therc is no mateitel on record to showthatwhile fhc caqiuiyw^ goingon before the cnquity ofiBcer, petitioner cver raised any objection in writing or evea oralty to QlStain tfae reportbffhe Haadwntmg Expert. It was onty after fhe oider of penaltywas imposed by fhe DtecipUnaiy Aufhorily tfaatthe petitioacr for fhe first time, in lus review petition, -ralsed this groimd. Vae coatentbBL of learaed counscl for the petitioner in fhas aegand, theref<we, te liablie to be rejccted. ll.A perusal of lifae enquuy report shows (hat thc Btiquuy OSsxx has aieticulousfy gone through fhe prosecution documents pardcularfy dbciuaent No.18 being joint report. Thc Enquuy Officer taas Gimsidered the details ofpaymeat made with respect to different Trauuag Ccntres. Utider each Iieading relating to a particular Ttaaaiag Centre, statement ctf witaesses have been taken iato coasidcratton to come to fhc eonclusioa ofgiult. Ftetitioner d|d npt exainiac any defence witaiess. The IMsciplmary Aufhorily accepted tiie ^nqituy Tcport and iBiposcd penalty. Petitioner was yweaaas. opportuiuty to cross-exainine tiieprosecutfonwitaesses.It is not fbue case of fhe petitioncr fhat aay of fhe piosecutton witt ss3 exammed by titie proisecution was not aflowed to be eioss-exanmed by fhe petitioner. Therefore, non-examination of all fhc witaesses eulisted by fhie prosecution does not vitiate enquiiy as fhc Eaqimy Officer has recorded fhe findiag of guilt bascd on stetements of proaecatioa wltaesses examined diuang fhe couise ofeiiquiiy. 12. Leamed counsel for the petttioner yeliemently subnattnl that thc payments were actuaUy made by S.M. Hussam, Block Dewlopnairait - Of&cer of Bloclc —Chokyand*A. R. Deshmnkh, Rural Agrfcultural Extension Officer. It js ateo submitted that fhe distribution ofinoney was ^-'^^—.-\ •^^s^^^. S ^s ^' -8- x^.•^^^/ done by Mr. Hussaiu and flfcrcafter dtetribution register atKl cash book were sent back to the petltioncr for inaldng entrics. Tbe cash book also contaias signatuic of Mr. Hussaui whfch shcws that tfae imymcnts were made by Mr. Hussain and the petitioner bemg suboidmate to him, as ordered by him., iccorded entrics in the cash book and di^rfliution register. Leamed counsel &r fhc petitianer also refers to tlie statements of soine of fhe pTosecution witiKsses placed on recwd atong wiA application for additton of additioiial grounds to coatend fhat aumber of witnesses namely Js^turam (P.W.5), Sitaram (P.W.-7), Chatur Singh (P.W.8), Sonkunwar (P.W. 10) stated that fhcy dal not know the petitioner. He also referred to the testiaiony of Antaram (P.W.6) & Sonkunwar (P.W. 10) to contend that fhese witnesses did notsay that the paymcats werc niade by fhe petitioner. Howevcr, m: fhe opiaion of ttiis Court, froin fhe abovc referred cwidencc, it cannotbe said that ihiesewas no evidencc on record to provc fiivolvement of (he petiMoner in Biakfaig foi^ed eatries regardiag pagrment inade to the Instructors aad Ttaiaees in various Trainmg Gcntres. 13. F*rom. fhe report of Enquiiy Officer, it is ctear that numberofwttaesses steted tfaat fheir sigDaturcs are foi^ed aud ibsy haw iieither put aay signature nor received aay payincnt. Sevcral wituesses, for inustratioii, Sevak Ram(P.W.-9) & Pashiram (P.W.ll) have ctearty stated fhat the petitioner uscd to get signatiu-es obtained. The entries ia the vouchers in. fhe distribution icgister and cash book have becn niade by the petitioBcr, which haye been fouad to be fox^ed. Thc fiiuliag is bt^ed on cvidence on record. It is not a casc ofno cvidcnce. 14. Though petitioiier 1sas raised a gricvaace fhathe-w^ not aBewed to take assistauce of a defence assistant, there is nofhing on recotd of Enqitiry (^ ^l. ^v. ?• -9- o fhat petitioncr ever inade such. appMcation. The OTder shcete &f EhMtuity also do not revcal any oral praycr niadc to fhis effeet la review petition, no such grozmd has been takcn, TIifo grotuod, taken for the first tuBe ia. fhe petition, is therefore, an aRBrihot^ht aad accortUngty rqected. 15. In thc fiiial aaatysis, no grouads warrantmg iatexfeienee with. fhc fladiag of guflt aad the penally are inade out. Petition is therefare dlsmisscd. Therc sbaU be no otder as to cost. 16. Original records ofDepartxaental Enqiary be rctumed to teamcd couasel for fhe State/respondents. Sd/- :j Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen