^ i^ •^' ^^ ,.-5.6C/ mGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} N0. 676 OF 2009 PETmONBR RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Ashok Rumar Pandey, S/o Late Shri B.P. Pandey, aged about 46 yeara, presently posted and working as In-chai^e Principal, Gownnnent High School, Sector - 7, BUlai Vagfs, Dishict Diug (CG). Versus Stote af Chhattisgath, Arough ffae Secretary, Department of School Education, DJt.S. Bhawai, DisU. Raipu- (CO). Directnr, PubKc tostructions, Chhattiagarh, Rapur (CG). Stats of Depuly Director (Education), Duig, Distt. Dmg(CG). rastrict Edueatkm Qfficer, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG). (Writ Petition uader Articte 226/227 offte Constitulion oflndia) Smgle Bench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present:- Shri K.N. Nande, cowisel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for flie State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 24tt day ofMarch, 2009) Wilfa Ifae consent ofleamed coimsel qipearing for fl>e parties, Ifae petition is heard finally. 2) By flus petition, flie petitioner challenges <he tetter dated 4-12-2008 (Annexure - P/l) issued by flte District Education QflBcer, Diug, and flie tetter dated 29-11-2008 (Annexure - P/2) issued by the Department of PubHc fastructians, by which Ihe charge sheet was supplied to Ifae petitioner and he was du'ected to sulwnit Ms tesponse before flie Oistrict Education QEBcer. 3) Leamed couasel appearing for the petitioner does not challengs the vaBdity offlie charge sheet dated 29-11-2008 on the ground fliat flte Cha-ge memo does not discloseany misconduct for which <fae charges have been framed except Ihat the (fisciplinay proceedings have initiated on a similar eharge No.4. 4) As far as (he charge No.4 dated 29-11-2008 is concemed, leamed counsel for the petttioner SMbmits <hat identical clurge was issued on 6-5-1998 (Annexure - P/8), fhus, the second departoental enquiry cannot be initiated against Ifae same charge, which was aiquired into in a deparimental procreding aid resulted in favour ofAe petitioner. 5) I have heard leamed counsel appesnag for ths patties, perosed die pleadings and flie documents appended fliCTeto. I fouad that Aere is diflference in flie laesent charge No.4 a&d die earUer charge. Oiarge No.4 dated 29-11-2008 reads that "the petitioner has ohtained the promotion on the basis cffcwsedMA. (English) examinalion certificcite" whereas <he earlier charge was Aat "the MJi. (English) examination certificate produced by the pettioner was not jrom a recogmzed Universify". Both Ihe charges are entiiely diGFerenfc B is weU setfled principles of law that charges camiot be quashed when flie departmental enquiry is pending consideration. 6) ]h Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh Ae St^neme Court observed as under: "6. In Ifae case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry Ifae tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges fiamed (read wifih imputation or particulars of flie chaiges, if any) no misconduct or odier aregulaity alleged can be said to have been made out or the eharges framed are coatraiy to aay law. At fliis stage, flie tribunal has no juriBdiction to go into fte correctness or truth of ifae charges. The teibunal cannot take over tfae fiiactionB of <he disciplinary auttiority. The ttuth or odierwise oflhe charges is a matter for flie disc^ilinary authority to go into. hdeed, even after Ifae conclusion of flie disciplinary proeeedings, ifflie mattsr comes to court or tribunal, ffaey have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of die chaiges or into die eoirectoess of ttie findings recorded by fte disciplinaty aidhority or Ae qipellate aufliority as Ae case niay be. The fiinction of the couri/tribunal is <me of judicial renew, flie parameters ofwhich are repeatsdly laid down by flus Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi. Excise and Tcucation Officer-cwn- Assessing Authority, Karnal v. Gopi Nath & Sons. The Bench cotiu>rismg M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he flten was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., afiBmied <he principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8) "Judicial teview, it is trite, is not direeted against ffae decision but is confined to flw decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extead to Ae examination of tfae correclness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The putpose of judicial review is to ensure fltat the individual receives fair treatmeiit and not to ensure (hat ' (1994)35cc 357 Ifae aufliority aflsr according fair Ireatment reaches, on •matter which it is aufhorised by law to decide, a conetosion wluch is correct in die eyes afthe Court. Judicial review is not an appeal fiom a decision but a review of d»e nasamst in which flie decision is made. U will be erroneous to (hink Ihat <he Court sits in judgment not only on flie correctaess of the decision making proeess but also on flie correctaess offce decision ftself." 7) In Dy. Inspector General ofPoBee vs. K.S. Swaminathan, the Supreme Court observed as under: "4. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of flus Court that if <he charge awmo u totrily vague and does not disclose any misconduct far wUch Ifae charges have beai framed, Ae tribunal or flie court would not be justifled at diat stage to go into whether the charges we troe and coold be gone mto, for it would be a matter on production ofthe evidaice for congideration at Ae enquiry by Ae enquiry officer. At 1fae Mage of fianung of flie charge, (he statement of facts aid the chage-sheet suppUed are required to be lopked mto by die'court or the tribunal as fojfae nature offlie chargai, i.e., vrfieflier the statement offacts and material in support (hereof suCT)lied to Ae delinquent ofGcer would 3iselose Ifae alleged misconduct. The Tribunal, Iherefore, was totally unjustified in going into ttie charges at that gtage. It is not die case that tfie chwge memo and the statement of facts do not disclose any misconduct alleged against the delinquent offiear. Theiefore, Ihe Tribunal was totally wnmg in quashing Ae charge memo. &i sinular cireinnstances, in respect of olher peraons involved in flie same transactions, tfais Court in qipeals arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 19453-63 ofl995'fiad on 9-2-1996 allpwedtlie appeals, set aside Ae Mder passed by <he Tribunal and renaitted tiie inatter holding ihat: "This is not <he stage at which ihe truth or oAerwise of die charges ou^it to be looked into. TUs is flie imiform view taken by this Court in such mattnrs." 8) Arolying the well settled lamciples of law to flie facts of the present case and for Ae reasons mentioned hereinabove, fiie petition is dismissed as premahn-e, at fliis stage. 9) Comequently, I.A.No. 1 stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '. ^ -i-' ^r; ^SS^'-S'-iy^^^-^, '^