PETITIONER 9x Organisation, Bhilai Steel , Ave-B W.P.No.: ‘ Wij / : Ashok Arya s/o of Shri Triloknath Senior Manager, (Stores), Materials R/o- Qr.No.2A Distt. DURG. Versus 1. Steel Authori Plant, Bhilai. Through: Managing Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai. Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Vi Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai. . Shri S.N.Tiwari Asst. General Mana Shri V.K.Verma Bhawan, Bhilai, The Inquiring Manager (Steel) ger(Vigilance), Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan , Bhilai. Vigilance Inspector, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ipspat . Shri Anurag Nagar, Authority & Chief Personal , Bhilai Steel Plant, Works General Manag Bhilai. 7. Shri A.K.James, ment Organisation, s;"Bhilai, Steel Plant Bhilai. OF INDIA F THE CONSTITUTION \_‘\\ Office Buildin§\No.7, Bhilai. 6. Shri A.K.Babaria, Department, Bhil er l/c, (Materials Management) ai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Materials Asst.General Manage Manager (IADC & NMIMG) Boria Main Store RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 - 227 O W OF 2001 , age 45 years, Management Plant, Bhilai. (C.G.) , Sector-2, Bhilai Tab.— ty of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Director, Bhilai Steel gilance Officer, Bhilai Steel \ . . z HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2259 OF 2001 PETITIONER‘ Ashok Arya Versus Steel Authority of India Limited & Others RESPONDENTS A Post for pronouncement of the order on /§ Iaay of March, 201 O x Sdl: Satish K. Agnihotri f Judge ‘ &GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUE I YiRlT (Writ Petition under Articfe 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish . Agnotr, J. Present:- Petitionerin person. i Advocate Dr. N.K. for Shukla, the respondents. Sr. Advocate with Shri Diiip Dubey, (Delivered on thi ay of March, 2010) memorandum dated 17-1-2001 (Annexure —- P/2) and the order Further the petitioner eeks promotion from e post of E-5 t E-6 grade with effect from 30-6-2000 with aii consequential 2. During pendency of the petition, the enquiry was concluded, which resulted into reduction of pay scale from Rs.23,900 + 2868 benefits and arrears. (SJ) pm to Rs.23,900+1912 (SJ) pm K ihi O R D E R s /m s th o PETITIONER 2259 OF 2001 V Ashok Arya RESPONDENTS Versus _ petitioner. The petitioner has also sought quashment of the punishment order dated 11—10-2008 subsequently by filing amendment appiication dated 21-10-2008 being l.A.No.6, which was allowed by this Court vlde order dated 9-2-2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the amended petition on 10—4-2009, to which the respondents have not filed any reply. Against the punishment order dated 11-10-2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Chairman, SAIL, lspat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 30-10-2008, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 20-2-2009, but the same is not under challenge in this petition. The facts. in nutshell, for disposal of the case, are that the petitioner is working in the respondent company/Bhilai Steel Plant (for short “the BSP”), unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, as Senior Manager (Stores) since last more than two decades. According to the petitioner, a complaint was registered against him in the Vigilance Department of the BSP on 4-6-1999 v on the basis of pseudonymous complaint. Thereafter, the Vigilance Department enquired about his properties from the petitioner by communications dated 16—6-1999 and 1 1-10-1999. Thereafter, on 17-1—2001 (Annexure — P/2) a memorandum of charges was issued by the Managing Director of the BSP, by leveling certain charges against him and asked the petitioner to submit his response within a period of 10 days from the date of $ receipt of memorandum. The imputation of charges read as under: “Shri Ashok Arya, P.No.4399, Sr. Manager (Stores), MM Organisation, joined Bhilai Steel Plant on 12.04.1979 as Graduate Engineer. He declared his parents viz. Shri Trilokh Nath and Smt. Janki Devi as his dependent and availed LTC facility for them for the block years 92—93, 94-95, 96—97 and 98-99. lt has been foun‘d that Smt. Janki Devi W/o Shri Trilokh Nath (mother of Shri Ashok Arya) is a owner of the house HIG-l/82 since 11.12.91, which is situated at Borsi Colony, Durg. Smt. Jankl Devi has sublet her house to one Shri Bansal and has been accepting Rs.1200/- per month as rent against the house. Declaring non-entitled members as dependent and available Company’s facility for them fall under the category of misconduct in the Company’s Rules. By the aforesaid act, Shri Ashok Arya, Sr. Mgr. (Stores) has violated Rule 4(1)(i), 4(1)(lii) .and committed misconduct under the clause 5(1) of SAIL Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules — 1977.” 5. By letter dated 22-1-2001 (Annexure — P/3) the petitioner requested for extension of time to submit his reply to the aforesaid memorandum and also sought for providing certain documents. When no response was received from the BSP, the petitioner submitted his reply on 31-1-2001 (Annexure — P/4). After completion of the enquiry, by letter of punishmentdated W 11-1 0-2008 (Annexure — P/1 9) the basic pay of the petitioner is reduced from Rs.23,900 + 2868 (S.l) pm to Rs.23,900+1912 (S.l) pm in the scale of Rs.18500-4%-23900 (E5) for a period of six months with cumulative effect, from the date of issue of this order. It was also directed to recover false claim of LTC/LLTC from the biock year 1996-97 & 1998-99 from the salary of the petitioner. Thus, this petition. Shri Arya, petitioner in person, would submit that the departmental enquiry proceedings have been initiated against him in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following the prescribed provisions made by the SAIL under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 (for short “the CDA Rules”). The documents sought for by the petitioner have not been supplied to him and the principles of natural justice has also not been followed. Even the copy of the complaint was not supplied to the petitioner. Shri Arya would further submit that with regard to getting rent of Rs.1,200/- by his mother from her own house, the rent receipts or the rent agreement have not at all been produced by the BSP. In fact, his mother has not received any rent and his parents are fully dependant upon him. The respondent No.5/Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry proceedings in an arbitrary manner and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer has not followed the CDA Rules in its true perspective. The enquiry proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner on the basis of pseudonymous complaint. Shrl Arya would next submit that on account of pendency of departmental enquury proceedings against hlm the petitioner was not consudered for promotion from E-5 to ‘E-6 grade, whereas his junior i.e. respondent No.7 has superseded him. Ag<avinst the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner had submitted set/era! representations, but the same have not been considered and decided. On the other hand, Dr. Shukia, learned senior counsel appearing with Shri Diiip Dubey, learned counsel for the BSP, would submit that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of complaint received by the Vigilance Department of the' BSP on 4-6-1999. According to the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commissioner of india received‘by the BSP on 21 7 1999 the authentICIty of the complaint is to be verified before investigation Since the compliant in question was received by the BSP before the receipt of CVC guidelines, the question of verification of complaint does not arise at all. After' following the due procedure /and after affording proper opportunity ofvhearing to the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner 10. Dr Shukla would further submit that the petitioner has given false declaration at the time of availing LTC for his parents namely; Smt. Janki Devi andgShri Trilok Nath that the income of his parents from all sources is not exceeding Rs.250/- per month as perthe Leave TravelConcession R'ules, 1982 of the BSP (for, short “the LTC Rules"). The petitioner has availed LTC for the block years 1992-93, 1994—95, 19é6-97 & 1998-99 for Yol Camp at Home Town (H.P.) for his dependant parents knowing the fact that his mother is the owner of house No.HIG-l/82 situated at Borsi Coiony, Durg, since 11-12-1991 and is getting rent of Rs.1,200/~ per month from one Shri Bansal, which can be seen from the letter dated 3-4-2000 (Annexure — P/5B) issued by the M.P. Housing Board, Sub Division — I (Borsi), Durg (for short “MPHB”). The petitioner is a‘responsible officer in the BSP and he shouid not claim LTC of his un-entitied parents, who are not dependant on him, as their income is more than Rs.250/- per month. The rent agreement or the rent receipts are under the custody of the owner of the house‘ i.e. the mother of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be produced by the BSP. Dr. Shukla would next submit that the promotion matter is to be looked into by the Corporate Office, as the petitioner is holding E—5 grade. The promotion from E-5 to E-6 grade is dealt with by the Corporate. Office according to the policy governing the promotions and is given w.e.f. 30m June of every year. Executives in the grade of E-5, on completion of four years of service in their grade, are considered for promotion to E-6 grade. The petitioner entered into E-5 grade on 31-12-1994 and had become eligible for promotion to E-6 grade on 30—6-1999. Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “the .DPC") recommends the case of eligible candidates for promotion’to E-6 grade taking into account the following factors e.g. performance, qualification and ACP + length of service. case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to E-6 grade in June, 1999 and June, 2000 but was not recommended by the DPC for promotion. The representations submitted by the petitioner for grant of promotion have already been forwarded to the Corporate Office. The Corporate Office informed that the case of the petitioner was not recommended to be confirmed by the Senior Manager, Exe. Cell for promotion to E-6 grade. The same has been intimated to the petitioner stating that “after considering factors like performance, qualification and length of service the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend your case for promotion to E—6 grade with effect from 30-6-2000." 12. i have heard the petitioner in person, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 13. So far as prayer to quash the charge sheet is concerned, since ' thecharge sheet has resulted into enquiry, the enquiry has been completed and after enquiry the punishment order has been passed, it is not necessary to examine the charge sheet on merits and pass any order on the same, at this stage. 14. The law is well settled by a series of decisions that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice, 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. Ramesh Kumar Singh‘, Special Director v. Mohd. Gulam Ghouse, 2 Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore3, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma‘ and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayanas. 15. On perusal of the documents, it is found that on receipt of pseudonymous complaint dated 4-6—1999, which was received by the Vigilance Department prior to receipt of the CVC guidelines dated 29-6-1999, the respondent authorities initiated a preliminary enquiry and interrogated the petitioner about his personal properties firstly on 16-6-1999. Thereafter, Shri V.K. Verma, Vigilance inspector and the employee of M.P. Housing Board visited the house bearing ‘No.HIG—|/82 situated at Borsi, Durg, which was found to be owned by the mother of the petitioner namely; Smt. Janki Devi and the same was given on rental basis to one Shri Bansal. At the time of inspection, the wife of Shri Bansal informed the inspection team that they were staying in the said house for the last three years. The authorities further sought information from MPHB, which constructed the colony and made allotments to the persons, about the house No.HIG-I/82. MPHB also by letters dated 3-4—2000 and 11-4-2000 informed that the house No.HIG-|/82 was allotted in the name of the mother of the petitioner and one Shri Bansal 1 2 3 4 5 (1996) 1 scc 327 (2004) 3 scc 44o (2001) 1o scc 639 (1987) 2 scc 179 (2006) 12 scc 28 was residing on rental basis and paying an amount of Rs.1,200/— per month. 16. In spite of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner ciaimed LTC on behalf of his parents declaring that the income of his parents is not more than Rs.250/— per 'month and they are fully dependant upon the petitioner. The said act of the petitioner is contrary to the CDA Rules. 17. After receipt of the charge memorandum, by letter dated 22-1—2001 (Annexure — P/3) the petitioner made a request before the BSP in the following manner: “In this context it is requested that I may of m kindl st‘étement be provided dated with 11-10-1999 the copy (ref. .No.1 ofAnnexure —-II/). Further In order to prepare my reply In the abo've matter copies of letters mentioned at S.No.2 and 3 of the Annexure /II of char e memorandum may be also be provi ed.” 18. In response to the aforesaid letter, the BSP by letter dated 23-2-2001 (Annexure — P/5) supplied the documents sought for by the petitioner. In the letter, the petitioner has not made any request to provide a copy of the complaint dated 4-6—1999, therefore, the petitioner cannot take a plea that in spite of his frantic efforts, the complaint dated 4-6-1999 was not supplied to him. 19. The enquiry has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and on so many occasions the petitioner appeared before the enquiring authority and adduced his evidence. During the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer examined several «Us; 10 prosecution as well as defence witnesses. From the enquiry report, it reveals that some times the petitioner used to remain absent form the enquiry prooeedings for delaying the same in spite of issuance of notice therefore, final enquiry proceedings were concluded ex pan‘e. In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police & Others6, decision cited by the petitioner, the Supreme Court observed that “normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of ‘guilt’ is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny." 21. The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal & Another’, cited by the petitioner, is not relevant to the facts of the case on hand, as in the said case finding was recorded on the back of the delinquent employee, whereas in the present case the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings. 22. The other decisions cited by the petitioner are also not relevant to the facts of the case on hand, as pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 17-1-2001 proper enquiry was held on appreciation of evidence, which is neither perverse nor based on no evidence. s (1999) 2 SCC 1O 7 (1998) 6 SCC 651 \ ~\ 11 23. The Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra”, observed as under : “16....Once findings of fact, based on a preciation of ewdence are recorded, t e High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were Wholly perverse and/or legal/y untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of' the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedin s, While exercisin the power ofju icial review, the Hig Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusron, with regard to the guilt of the delin uent, for that of the departmen al authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissrb/e or such that it shocks the conscience of the Hi h Court, it should not normally substi ute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. appears, ignored the well-settled principle that even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the court, in exercise of the power of judicial review, Is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural i/legalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision—making process. Lord Hal/sham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans observed: Both Division the learned Bench of Single t e Jud Hig e Court, and the it \Bmgeg) 1 scc 759 \ 12 @ ‘The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized or enjoined by law to decide for itse/ti a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. " 17. Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a rewew of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after fol/owing the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute Its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere ofjurisdiction of that authority. " 24. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jaikaran Singhg, observed that‘ “normally, the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 does not interfere with the quantum of punishment alone if the charges are established against the delinquent and there is no lacuna in the procedure adopted in the departmental proceedings. But at times if the Court feels that the punishment inflicted is grossly unjust and shocks the conscience then in appropriate cases the Court may interfere." 25. In State Bank of lndia and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde”, the Supreme Court observed as under: “6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an A pellate Authority despite the consis ent view taken by this Court that the High Court and‘the Tribunal while exercrsrng the judicral 9 (2003) 9 SCC 228 1o (2006) 7 SCC 212 13 review do not act as an Appellate Authority: ‘its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial reVIeW is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciatin the evidence as an p.379, para 1 1.) 9. lt is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence which had been considered b the in uiry A officer, pellate a disc1 Authority. linaiy The aut findin ority an of the the igh Court on facts runs to t e teeth of the evidence on record. 13. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court has erred both in law and on facts in interfering with the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority ,by acting as a court of appeal and reappreciating the evidence. ’ 26. So far as the prayer of the petitioner seeking direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from E—5 to E-6 grade is concerned, sufficient materials have not been produced to examine the issue, though it has been clearly stated on oath that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Corporate Office and on consideration they have not found fit the candidature of the petitioner for promotion. Since all the materials are not brought on record before this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation for consideration of his case to grant promotion and the respondent authorities may consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 14 27. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as the action has been taken by the BSP against the petitioner in a fair and transparent manner and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is no breach of principles of natural justice. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There will no order asto costs. Sdl- i Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge