;/'^ ^ ^PW^ Cf/ -Sr^ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR.CG. ^) W.P^JO^ /2008. PETmONER -* T^J .^•^ /V'd^-'" ^ ^^y i\ < Q^^ .^> ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS B.LKehari aged 50 years inspectorThani3 Incharge Sukuma BastarPresently Posted at Police Line RaipurC.G. 1. The state Govt of Chhatisgarh Through theSecretary Home affairsb.K Bhavan Raipur. 2.The Oirector General of Police State Govt. of C&. S.The Inspector General of Police Bastar Range Jagdalpur C.G. 4.The syperintendent of police Jagdalpur C.G. /" 5 The Addl. S.P. Enquiry officer South Bastar bantewada C.G. ^. ^l WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226.227 THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITfSt ORbERfS)ANb bIRECTCONfS) OTHER WRIT ETC. 4^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPUR WRn:PETniQNISl^Q,_6766QE2008 ' PETITIONER B.L. Kehari RESPONDENTS Versus The Govt. of Chhattlsaarh Others ^*. Post for pronouncement of the juagment on _,^?day of January: 2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Y ;" F^«NN< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6766 OF 2008 PETITIQNER B.L. Kehari RESPONDENTS Versus The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Arjun Yadav, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (Delivered on this ^°1 day of January, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21-6-2007 (Annexure - P/6) whereby the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, imposed punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect having consequential bearing on future increments, pension, etc. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 15-7-2008 (Annexure - P/8) whereby the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, confirmed the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner was working as Police Inspector, Bodhghat, Bastar District at the relevant time. A complaint was made by one Dr. Pratap Agrawal, Advocate, Jagdalpur on 11/12-6-2006 about theft of building materials. The written complaint was handed over to Head Constable namely; Shri ^'^^ '"'% ;: 1 . i: "^iiil^t li ^a i %.. ^^/ / '1i^^ 't:fe^^,,r ^:^^ Ramdeo Rathia for enquiry. Later on it was found that the written complaint handed over to Shri Rathia was misplaced in the office and, as such, one more complaint dated 20-6-2006 (Annexure - P/2) was lodged by one Shri Rakesh Das. On finding that no action was taken by the Police Inspector, Bodhghat, the matter was reported to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. In enquiry, the petitioner was summoned and in his presence almirah was opened and the written complaint was found, which was marked to one Rathia for conducting enquiry. The case was, thereafter, registered on 3-7-2006 being crime No.221/2006 for offence under Section 456 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for committing misconduct under the provisions of Police Regulations vide Annexure - P/3. The petitioner submitted his reply. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and in the said enquiry all the charges framed against the petitioner were found proved. On the basis of enquiry the above stated punishment was imposed. Thus, this petition. Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner having received the complaint handed over the same to the Head Constabte namely; Shri Rathia to enquire the matter, who kept the written complaint elsewhere. The comptainant lodged two different reports i.e. one on 11/12-6-2006 and the second on 20-6-2006. Both the reports are different and even the value of the property is also shown differently and, as such, the matter was not registered. Learned counsel placed • '^'^, ^.-,:-^:%.-.. ^'^-^ reliance on a circular dated 12-11-1997 (Annexure - P/9) wherein it is clearly provided that while considering the cases of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class employees, the Disciplinary Authorities should be liberal in imposition of punishment, which was completely ignored by the authorities. The authorities failed to consider the past records and conduct of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order imposing punishment may be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that despite serious complaint, the petitioner has not registered the case and has not initiated the investigation. This was a serious lapse on the part of the petitioner, who happens to be the responsible officer of the Police Department. When the enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, it was found that the written complaint was lying in the almirah accordingly unattended by the petitioner. All the serious charges leveled against the petitioner were found proved. The petitioner has not challenged the departmental enquiry on the ground of any irregularity, illegality or lack of opportunity before imposition of the present punishment in dispute. Earlier 48 minor penalties and 1 major penalty were imposed on the petitioner. A sympathetic view has been taken and, as such, punishment withholding one increment with cumulative effect on future increments, was imposed. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. -' ^^ ^;;' :••:. After issuing show cause notice, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued on the following charges : "a-nRhr 1. f^rf^ 11 ^ 12-6-06 ^t ^^Tpft -?m ^T. ^RTR -ll^l^lul WT^TeT ^ 4l1^1^-l ^ vf^rf ^mH ^Fuft ^rKt ^ ^ fN^r ^FTT ^f. ^RITT '11^1^1UI SnraM ^ ^ppT? sri^ra^rr ^ft ^?r £?RT R'ii'4> 12.6.06 ^t aTPTT ^tsTEn^ ^' 9^T ^^ W( ^lNt ^ ^it^S 3T(RTEr ^t ^Ppft <1c4»ld ^ ^^ gf^RT ^5^?'T ^) 'HPT-06, STSqPT-01 ^ f^PW 710 ^T ^PT6e ^<rQlt|-rl ^^TT 1 2. f^TR? 20.6.06 ^t ^ft ^?T s?m STRT ^terar^ Mir^? SIT^^T q?r ^ ^t ^ ^pf^t ^ ^ra'er ^' ^y<iiu ^^ TR STT^T TT5T ^ ^t uIT^ ^t ^t ^r^T ^^^ ^?RT 3||^c{-| xra ^ZTT? ^^ 9^^T ^t^ ^?^? ^,TRT? ^r^ ^T II^T?T ^^TT ^a-TT S'TT^^^ ^r. ^ren -ii'{i^i"i snrmcr SKT f^-rra? 21.6.06 ^t ^ft ^tf^T ^, arRr. ^t^RT 3reftffra>. \ii^i<{d^ ^ ^mcr ^rf^RT 'st^f f^ffecT Rl<t>l^d V[^l V^f ^r^ 1T? ^ft •?tf^T ^. 3Tf^.^.3T. ul^|c;d^ ^RT ^TT^ ^ Pi^y* ^r. ^. ^^t ^ ^r^rIT ^' 3PRTET ^T^m ^? R^-11 ^^ Pt^Ria q^ ^ ^M^f^t <(ft ^PRTST ^TEFT ^T ^? ^ff^s ^rfSr^rRqT ^ Pi^^iT ^t sraicRT ^? ^cEi ^ ^t^T •q"t»ft^ <?114^c||^| 6j^a<t>^ CDC;|T||^ ^r^Rhr ^R-TT i 3. f^TT^ 3.7.06 ^ ^T Pl^<t> 3RT^» ?T(rf EfKT an^ ^t Sld^l^ ^t^ ^TT^ TK ^ft •?T^?T ^RT £ET?T Rr11'4) 12.6.06 ^t aTMT ^teraR ^' ^R^r DT®m srr^-r q^ Pi^y<fr ^t. ?cT. ^^t ^t ^cT ^ w^f ^n \ w^ 1ST^R Pl^l^tb ^. T?cT. ^i^ 8TPIT ffi^. ^erarc ETRT sra^ <iRi<xiT ^T f?T^rr ^T ^? ^PT^ ^cZf ^ ^Rr ETI^ diq^cii^l ^K^ ^ 4>d<M^4 ^t ^ ^f^ 3PT?TET q»T ^TSTT ^Fff TT?r 21 f^T ^K f^-Tf^ 3.7.06 ^t ^uf ^TT I" 8. The charge sheet was issued along with imputation of charges, list of documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner participated in the enquiry, as it is not the case of the petitioner that there was any defect in the enquiry. Enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendentof Police. On enquiry it was found that all the charges were found fully proved. Thereafter, second show cause notice with enquiry report was issued to the petitioner on 23-3-2007 (Annexure - P/5). The petitioner submitted his response to the second show cause notice also. ^•^y^^^ '^'!^/ ^:-'s^~ 9. After having considered the enquiry report and the response of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the enquiry report, imposed the punishment by order dated 21-6-2007. Thereafter, appeal was preferred before the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which was dismissed by order dated 15-7-2008 (Annexure - P/8). 10. On hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the documents, it appears that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter and for having committed misconduct in the past, he was imposed 48 minor penalties and 1 major penalty before the present orderwaspassed. 11. Having regard to the nature of delinquency on the part of the petitioner, it cannot be held that the authorities have not taken a liberat view in the light of circular dated 12-11-1997. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the enquiry report and, as such, it is not necessary to go into the enquiry report. 12. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case could not be registered, as both the complaints were different and contrary to each other deserves to be rejected on a simple ground that whenever a complaint is lodged in the Police Station, it is incumbent upon the police station-in-charge to register a case and investigate the matter. The failure on the part of the petitioner without assigning proper reasons led to holding of a departmental enquiry. Enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was found guilty of all the 3 charges as aforestated. ^y%. /^:..\ "^ "N 1 '•^:^^'' ':~^^^ 13. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and Another1, wherein the High Court quashed the punishment order passed by the authorities, the Supreme Court held as under: "14. The scope ofjudicial review in dealing with departmental enquiries came up for consideration before this Court in State of A.P. v. Chitra Ventaka Rao and this Court held : (SCC pp. 562-63, paras 21 and 23-24) "21.......... The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have 1 (2009)88cc 310 }: ^"""^ '!i"a?&. arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226. 23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan. 24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own ^ conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do." 15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error and, in our thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we send the matter back to the High Court." 14. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others the Supreme Court observed that "judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the 'decision-making process'." (1987)43cc611 .^. ^ ^ '^. ''sss9^^ '^i^SsS^' 10 15. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons stated hereinabove, 1 am of view that there is no scope for interference with the impugned orders passed by the competent officers. 16. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. —-———-_ }own Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge