:^: psft s%^%^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ;:;ai ....-- ^.•ig^j^..f;fS^::: ^SSif'I^i v^KK"'Q^^""""" d^d'""" <HI<»1*»11<<I 'Swl *r*JII*4lcf&S f9' ft•a-I^^KS f^rcsn:2:T^:^(^5' ^t.) W.P. N0600 / 2006 •(.^^ll'l STRTT3T TTqff M1^<-*4< 'SQ 'STTT^PT 44 'q^f r'lcii+n ^r^ ^. 3 'v^f ^w^^-6 'tiK'xi l^rar <*>ir<'4i (®.~TT.) .. .. "f^l^:^" i. ~ysr( "^STST r't^yi'* ^ '•HTSa-T i'FZ'f ^?T ^l^-g r;riri<^^ rs«'ii'M'i<. (^.Tr.) 2. <-i^iy^sr^i' '^rres-T f^"=f 'qrt'57 r^<r^ T<rir^i~s ^ft.T^q.a'rrfq?^ ('^rt') 'CTTS^T ^•"KI'(SI"S •stil<M<1 f^RTT •+1R-4I (®.~T.) 3. "STT^Isn^ -g^fcT^ <^<-ri. 5i<i<i<aus <=hl^t<1 (<aT<ii4i'i1) T3?S.'^.^ft.-g^T. (^y^cl ^T) 1^T?TT <=b1 R-41 (® .17.) 4. T^^raT 41<n<=hl ^TT^T '^ 5-1cl-<-tlS'1 ^•(-d ^i<K]<SI"S •=hi<fl<1 I^RTT °h1R<41 (^.TT.) .. *IIR a-casci 141?i"T ^I^%T/Aa •UlRfdat afcTafcT 3T5I:ErS^Zr 228 ^•lri«-l<flri aiaFsS'S: 227 ail-xlcflq'. TffN'E.tT"! 1 ^ 8- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRJT PETITION NQ. 800 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rahman Versus Mukhya Prabandh Nideshak & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/2270fthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate appears for Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 15th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2, By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 21.5.1986 (Annexure P1) passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working in the respondent S.E.C.L., on the basis of complaint for committing theft of coal, the report for commission ofan offence punishable under Section 379 ofthe Indian Penal Code has been lodged against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested. On the basis of registration of criminal offence, the petitioner was removed from the service. On completion of trial, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges leveled against him by the judgment dated 26.2.2000 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, in criminal case No.2497/89. After acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner by making an application requested the respondent authorities for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, but till date nothing has been done. Thus, this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges, but in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty. After conducting proper ~^ '.. ...-"" »>'-/ departmental enquiry, the impugned punishment order dated 21.5.1986 has been passed. The petitioner has not challenged the outcome of the departmental enquiry. Both the departmental enquiry as well as criminal charges are different from each other, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appende.d thereto. 6. From the impugned order, it is evident that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned order on the legally permissible grounds i.e. the enquiry suffers from perversity, illegality and jrregularity. 7. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Others , observed as under: "9. 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 tojudicial scrutiny." 8. In Yoginath Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anotheii, the Supreme Court observed as under : "51.......The law is well settled that if the findings are perverse and are not supported by evidence on record or the findings recorded at the domestic trial are such to which no reasonable person would have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to interfere in the matter. In Kuldeep Vs. Comm. of Police this Court, relying upon the earlier decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs, Rama Rao, Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain, Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel as also Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Admn. laid down that although the court cannot sit in appeal over the 1 (1999)28cc 10 2 (1999) 7 SCC 739 y~~ a ^S"' .Si- ^y' ,,i^'^, fC. ^^'^'^•^, I S^^s.-""1'" ^j' ^ *<^.gE .<^~B~..^ *^E'' ^i? ^.^/ ^ ^- 10. 11. findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer ina departmental enquiry, it does not mean that in no circumstances can the court interfere. It was observed that the power of judicial review available to a High Couri: as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the courts can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse". In the enquiry, the authority found that the conduct of the petitioner was against the Certified Standing Orders clause 17(i)(a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (i) and (p). Even the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the facts are identical and the witnesses are also same in both the criminal and departmental enquiry case. Thus, the impugned order is just, proper and does not warrant any interference of this Court. In view of foregoing, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. -^r" Arun