^p»^®w»« ^l^' ^} IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. ?3<^© OF 2009 PETITIONER '^ ,.^ c^y / ^•^•'' -<^"9>' ^ ^"^' RESPONDENTS Satish Prakash Singh, S/o Late Shri Ram Khilawan Singh, aged about 38 years, working as Upper Division Teacher, Govt.(Tribal Welfare) Higher Secondary School, Tuman, Block - Kartala, District - Korba (C.G.) R/o near Jaistambh, Kududand, Ward No.2, Vishnu Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS l.f State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Aadim Jati tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). < ' ' • 2. The Commissioner, Aadim Jati tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). 4. The Chief Executive Officer, JUa Panchayat, Korba (C.G.). 5.f The Assistant Commissioner, Aadiwasi Vikas Korba, District Korba (C.G.) / 6. The Secretary, Jila Saksharata Samiti, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). 13 1 p HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} No. 7360 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Satish Prakash Singh. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 17th day of December, 2009) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heardfmally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the charge sheet dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure P/2) and the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P/l) under Rule 9 and 9(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Servdces (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and was attached to the office ofPrincipal, Higher Secondary School, Tuman, Development Block, Kartala. He was prima facie found guilty of violating the provisions of Rule 3 of the fc Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 in distributing the amount of travelling allowances and also distributing the articles. Thereafter, the petitioner was ser^ed with a charge sheet on 29.12.2008 (Annexure P/2) on the allegations that the petitioner has withdrawn a sum ofRs. 28,200/- in advance for travelling allowances but after obtaining the signatures of Motivators and Assistant Motivators on blank payment A- cb receipts, the same has not been distributed to them and farther, 11 bicycles and 11 carpets have not been deliVered to the various centers. It has further been alleged that the amount received could not be utilized within time due to non-maintaining the cash book and other documents because of which, no further allotment ofamount could be obtained for the next year. It is also alleged that the petitionerjoined at Higher Secondary School on 31.10.2007 instead of 30.08.2007 which affected the studies ofthe students. Shri Soni, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet-has been issued to the petitioner without relevant documents. The petitioner made a representation on 12.01.2009 (Annexure P/3) to the respondent No. 3 and requested for supply ofdocuments in support ofthe allegations levelled against the petitioner. Thereafiter, the petitioner also sent a reminder for supply ofrelevant documents. Shri Soni further submits that the documents in support of the allegations have been issued to the petitioner with a covering letter dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure P/5), but the same ought to have been issued by the respondent No. 3, who is the disciplinary authority. However, the documents have been issued by the respondent No. 6. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of suspension on 16.01.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner also preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 3672/2009, which was disposed of by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the respondent authorities therein to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt ofthe order dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P/6). According to the petitioner, afiter the receipt ofthe said order, by order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P/7), the suspension order has been revoked. .^ ^^^^s^ <r. Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing ofthe charge-sheet. Shri Soni further submits that the charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner and at the time ofissuance of charge-sheet, no documents relating to the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been issued. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner has made reminder, no action has been taken and the documents have been supplied after lapse ofmore than 49 days. The documents have not been supplied by the competent disciplinary authority, whereas the same has been supplied by the respondent No. 6. Thus, the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated and is liable to be quashed. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The grievance ofthe petitioner is that the petitioner has been supplied the relevant documents as sought for by him by the respondent No. 6, whereas it ought to have been issued by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has made representation and sent reminders to the respondent No. 3 for supply of the documents. It seems that only on the instmctions of the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 6 has supplied all the relevant documents sought for by the petitioner vide memo dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure P/5). A copy ofthe same has been endorsed to the respondent No. 3, Even otherwise, it is for the State Govemment to arrange and provide the relevant documents to the delinquent employee and it is not at all the concem ofthe petitioner asto which authority has provided the documents. Amit 8. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the entire disciplinary proceedings. The charge sheet has already been issued to the petitioner alongwith all relevant documents. At this stage, this Court may not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings as no order, whatsoever, has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has all opportunity to rebut the charges levelled against him and defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. 9. The Supreme Court, in Transport Commissioner, Madras-5. v. A. Radha Krishna Afoor?/?y ,observed as under: "7. So far as the tmth and correctness of the charges is concemed, it was not a matter for the Tribunal to go into— more particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. As pointed out by this Court repeatedly, even when the matter comes to the Tribunal afiter the imposition ofpunishment, it has no jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegations/charges except in a case where they are based on no evidence, i.e., where they are perverse. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is power ofjudicial review.It only examines the procedural correctness of the decision-making process. For this reason the order of the Tribunal insofar as it goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the charges, is unsustainable in law. 8. Insofar as initiation of enquiry by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority is concemed, it is well settled now that it is unobjectionable. The initiation can be by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Only the dismissal/removal shall not be by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Accordingly it is held that this was not a permissible ground for quashing the charges by the Tribunal." 10. In view ofthe foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ' (1995)18cc 332