AFR HIGH CO3RT GF CHHATTI$GARH : 3XLASPLTR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE $HR1 SATISH K. AGNIHQT WRIT PE’HTIQN M rm, sias OF 2005 Pxeasem: :- Shri Prashant JaEwal, Sr. Advocate with 8111i V'may Pandey, couns€l for ths petitioner’ Shri Ajay Dwivedi, P211161 Lawyer, for th€ State. ORAL ORDER wagsad on 28th July, 2006} T116 petitionm‘ was working as Steno in tha office of tho Armed Polico Training School (in short “APTS”), Jagdalpur, under Commandant of tho said School. Tho petitionar was charge. aheetod by ordex datad 14—12‘1998 (Annexuro—A/ZZ) firstly, for retaining the file in regard to cm‘minal caso registarod against Constablo (Drivor) (30) namely, Sultan Hussajn from 14—8— 1997 illegally for a period of three months and the proceedings could not be initiated against Sultan Huesain, secomily, the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs,5000/- from Sultan Hussain as blibe not to mitiate any 5 action against him and thirdly, in View of the above stated conduct of the delinquent employee, the petitioner has breached the trust and contidence of the department which comes Within the purview of g'rave misconduct (2) The departmental enquiry was initiated. Mr. Kamta Singh Tomar, Company Commandant, Police Training School, Jagdalpur, submitted his enquiry report to the Commandant, Petimoner Raju George Vewus RespomientS $tate of Chhattisgarh 85 Others km AP’I‘S, Jagdalpur, on 11-2— 1999 (Anxmxurs-A/5). The. Enquiry Officer found chargeS No.1 & 3 proved against the petitioner and Charge No.2 was not found proved in View of the contradictory statements made by the witneeses against the petitjoxler. Pursuant to the enquixy report, the petitioner was dismissed from his services by order dated 17-54999 (Annexure—A/ 16). .(3) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition impugning the enquiry report dated 11—2e1999 and the order of dismissal dated 176-1999 on the ground that there is 11o evidence on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer has found charges No. 1 & 3 pmved. {4) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in View of the decisions of the Supreme Court. in the cases of Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and others (1999) 2 SCC 10, V. Ramana vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others (2005} 7 SCC 338 ($5 State of Rajasthan and another vs. Mohd. Ayub Naz (2006) 1 SCC 589, this Court has power of judicial review in case of departmental enquiry when the fmdiné is based on no evidence. It is further contended by learned counsel that there is no evidence at all to pmve the charge against the petitioner. (5} On the contraiy, learned counsel appealing for the respondent State submits that it is true that there is no evidence With-regard to charge No.1. If all the statements are taken into consideration, the charge No.2 stands proved and the order of dismissal from service is just and proper. miwf WI (6) After having heard learned counsel for the pa111'es and havmg peruscd the racords appended to the petition and the return, it is found that there is no evidence at all which goee to prove that the petitioner sat over the $e and did not proceed with the matter for a period of three months on the basis of some offer made by Sultan Hussain. Immediate superior officer LR. Kashyap (PW-5) who has to take action on the basis of criminal case registered against Sultan Hussajn, has clearly stated that the hie was received by him on 14—8—1997 which was handed over to the petitioner on the same day. The In—eharge Commandant (PW—5) had further taken steps on 23—8— 1997 by cailing for explanation of Sultan Hussain and thereafter action was taken on 19—9—1997, 23—9—1997 8:. 28—9—1997, It clearly establishes that the tile was not retained by the petitioner for more than 10 days and the same was made available to the In—charge Commandant (PW—5) Who was under obligation to take action as and when it was required by him. Evidences of other witnesses are not on this point but on other points with regard to payment of Rs.5000/— to the petitioner, which has not been found proved by the Enquiry Officer himself. 3 (7) The contention of the respondent State that the charge No.2 has been found proved on several other evidences cannot be considered at this stage because the Disciplinary Otticer has proceeded on the basis of enquiry report to remove the petitioner from service wherein charges No. 1 dz, 3 have been found proved. Charge No.3 is consequential if charge No. 1 is E found provmi. Hence, in View of W611 S6tt1Ed pn'ncipla of law that this Court haS power of judicial review in case of depmfmental enquiiy if the same is based on no evidence. In the, progent case the entire enquiry report is based on no evidence. (8) For the reasons stated above, the enquiry report dated 11-2-1999 and the dismissal order dated 17-5—1999 stand quashed. In the facts of the case when the petitioner has not laid down any pleadings for grant of back wages in particular whether the petitioner was employed gainfully elsewhere or not, in the interest of justice and having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of back wages. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be reinstated forthwith in service with 50% back wages. (9) This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. l sm— ‘ Satish K.Agnihotri, re y t Judge \ z GOWRI x l t