•';-.^. .-ii IN TI-IE HIGH COURT OF SAADiffA PR.PUjESH AT JABALPUR, Petiti@B N©.! :/ Writ Petiti@B Diaesh Kumar Shrivastaya V^rsus Chairmaa-cum-MaBagiBg Dir8ct@r^- S<»E»C,eL^ Bil^spur ^tiiers —e '-— ©f 19 Petiti^Mer PETITION UI®SR ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF II®IA JTOR ISSUING A WRIT IN THE^ NATURE Oi- CSR-'nQRARI,M.aj®AMUS ESC< & ALSO FC-R ISSUING NSCESSARY . DIRECTl^S -^v 1» Particulars ef ^ the P©titi@aer Diaesh Kiimar Shriva^tava S/© Shri(Late) A^PaSlirivastava^/ age€ 50 years^, Pay L@a€er Op@rat@r^ B@rtu^g^ C^le^y Miaes.:^. resi€e^t @f Qtr^Ne^ 126^ P^O^ CMirimiri C@lli@ry^ District Surguja (M^P) 2» Pa.rticular3 ^ef. the.Respt^i.eBts ^J> la ^' $'2- ^? 3. l®ES£2^s^^, -^^?. ^^o^ ^A 5.^^^i| ^...-^- .,_:_^..^.-^Ji-—- Chair^aB-<cum-<MaBagiBg Directer^. Seuth .Easterm C@alfields Ltd^^ Seepath R@a€.f Bilaspur (M^P) NiM@s SuperiateadeBt/Ma^ager^. Kurasia Celliery.^ Office @f Sub Area Ma^ager^. Kurasia Gr^up^ P^O^ Kurasi^ Colliery^ District Surguja (M^P) Tfa© Chief Gexieral MaMager^ Scmth'SasterM Cealfields Lt€i<»^ Chirimiri .Area.^ Chirimiri^ District Surguja (M.P) ^& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.No.l7ofl998 Diaesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs- Chairmaa-cum-Managiag Director, S.E.C.L. and others A 'IA-' ORDER Postfor 2_$ .07.2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /•'s/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.No.17 of 1998 Dinesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs- Chairmaa-cum-Maaagiiig Director, S.E.C.L. aadothers Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for tiie petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, cozmsel for the rcspondents. ORDER (1^.07.2005) Sunil Kumar Sisiha, J The petitioner has chatleuged the legaUty aiid validity of fhe impugned order dated 19/26-07-1997 by which, after a complete departmental enquiry the disciplinaiy authority has unposed the punishm.ent of reversion from the post of Pay Loader Operator Group-B to the Post ofPay Loader Operator Group-C. (2) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition ai'e fh.at. on 09.2.1997 the petitionerwas workiag on fhe post of Pay Loader Operator Group-B. He was served witii a charge sheet dated 10.2.1997. The charges are tiiat on 09.2.1997 due to negUgeut operatiiig of Pay-Loader No.Exc. 1002 by tiie petitioner in. the coal flelds area, a Rotocol DriU (which was in testiiig operation in. Page Cut Coal) was dashed throzigh stone boulder which dainaged the radiator, side support, ftie bottoni foundation aiid the aUied pipiag of the driU. The petitioner filed his reply denying the charges whereafter the enquuy officer was appointed on 15.2,1997. He conducted enquiry aad subraitted his report dated 1- 14/ 17-5-1997. A show cause notice was issued by tiie disciplniaiy authority alongwith enquiry report, The petitioner filed his reply ou 02,6.1997 aad fhereafter, tlie disciplmary authority iraposed the iaipugned punishnient vide order dated 19/26-7-1997 which is under chaUenge ui this petition. (3) The impugned order has been cliallenged niaiTSLly on fhree grounds. First ofall, it is contended fh.at the findiag ofthe enquiiy officer is not based on niaterial on record aiid is based on extraaeous considerations. The fiiidiags are perverse aiid are Uable to be ignored. The secoud contention is tliat the entii'e enquiry vitiates as the enqiiiry officer, first of all, recorded the claims/statenient of the petitioner aiid thereafter conducted tlie entire enquir}7, fherefore, a wrong procedure was adopted by him. which completely vitiates tlie enquiry. The third contention is that tlie enquuy has been conducted violating the pmiciples of natural justice, equity aad fair play m. as inuch as Biaay of the docuinents deinanded by the petitioner were not szippUed to hioi aiid the case offhe petitioner has been prejudiced on this ground. (4| Retura has been filed by the respondents. It has been contended by thera th.at Uiere is no violation of fundaDiental principles ofnaturaljustice as the petitioner has been afforded fuU opportunity of hearing. Merely by asking vadous questions froin the petitioner aad general explanation of tiie petitioner m. connection with. tiie alleged charges leveled agaiast him does not vitiate tiie enquiry. It is furtih.er stated that the docuinents asked vide Annexure P-8 were uot fhe relevaat documents for the purpose of this eiiquin^ fherefore, refusal to supply copies of tibiose ,3- -3- documents does not aoiount to denial ofopportunity ofhearuig. It is also contended fhat tlie fmding of the fact recorded by fhe enquuy officer is not based upon any extraaeous consideration artd the same is based upon positive evidence available on record which caanot be interfered by this Court ia writ junsdiction under Article 226 offhe Constitution of India. (5| I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties aad have also perused the records of ttie writ petition. So far as the first porat ia relation to the findiag of ttie enquiry officer is concemed, fhe law ia relation to scope ofjudicial review is weU settled. The apex Court has held ia the matter of State ©fT.N. -Vs' Thiru K.V. Perunwl and others (1996) 5 SCC 474 that fhe question as to whefher tlie charges were estabUshed on tlie raaterial available is beyond the scope of jiidicial review as fhe faribunal is not aa appellate authority over ttie departmental aufhorities. It has subsequently been held by ofher judgmeuts of fhe Hon^ble Apex Court that the coiuts and fhe tribunal caanot reexaiaine the evidence aiid hold that fhe fuiding of the enquiry officer or fhe appeUate authority was per^erse, The High Court does not sit as tiie appellate aufh.ority but it exercises its jurisdiction wifhia fhe Uiaits ofjudicial review to correct fhe errors of law aad see tiie violation of principles of natural justice, The Court or Tribunal inay iaterfere where the aufhority held the proceediags against fhe delinquent ofiicer ia a aiaaner iaconsistent wifh fhe rules of uatural justice or ia. violation of statutory rules prescnbiag fhe niode of iaquiry or where th.e conclusion or fuidiag reached by the discipliaary authority is based 011 no evidence. If the conclusion or findiag be such as no -4-- -/ reasonable person would have ever reached^ tlie Court/Tribunal niay iiiterfere with fhe conchision or the findiag, aad raould the relief so as to inake it appropriate to the facts of fhat case. Please see AER 1997 S.C. Pcs. 1900 (Governvnent of Tandl Neidu ansd ethers^ys- S^Ve^RgS & AIR 1997 S.C. Pg. 190S fl?ae .BcircK Kshetriiia Gramin Banfe -'PS- BfcoEa Nath Sifwh cmd ofhers) and ^1995) 6 SCC 750Jlfnjon ofjndic^u^ another -Vs- B.C. ChattirvedL (6) Ifwe exaaune tlie case ra hand, it would appeai' tih.at iii aU. 7 witnesses were examined by the inanagenient asid all fhese witaesses have beeu cross-exainnied at length by tiie petitioner and his co-worker aad fhereafter the petitioner also exaaimied his witnesses £aid on the basis of these inaterials on record, the enquiry ofii.cer has recorded flie fnidiiig that the petitiouer was negUgent in his duty, There is no force ia tlie first point raised by leaiiied counsel for fhe petitiouer and the saoie caanot be accepted. (7) Now comiag to tlie second pom.t about the violation of fundamental priaciples of natural justice it would apparent from the record that fhe enquiry officer coBiraenced fhe enquiry on 20,2.1997. On that date the petitioner and liis co-worker were present. The charges were read over to hisii aiid iii explaiiation thereof a general exainiaation of fhe petitioner took place and thereafter enquiry proceeded fromi tirae to time. The niaaageraent witaesses we.re exarauied in the presence of the petitioner aad his co-worker. In atl, 7 witiiesses were exaniiaed, The witaesses were cross-examuied by the petitioner aiid his co-worker aad tiiereafter -5 only tlieir evidence were considered, In tlie said process of conductiou of depailmental enqziirvr it caanot be said tli.at the priiiciples of natural justice were not foUowed aad tlie departmental enquiry vitiates on fhis ground. (8) So far as fhe examination of tiie petitioner at fhe first iiistance pnor to examniation of ofher witiiesses is conceiTied, leamed couusel for the petitioner could not poiat out as to what prejudice has been caused to fhe petitioner ui this procediire and how tiie enquiry vitiates. Ou the contrary it appears from reply as weU as flie documents of enquuy that on 20.2.1997, the enquiry comiaenced, the enquuy officer on that day, first of aU., read over the charges to the petitioner to which the petitioner denied, It appeai's that fhereafter the enquiry officer asked to tlie petitioner as to what does he waat to say ? On this only the petitioner said his defence as to how ftie accident took place aad fhis defence was recorded by the enquiiy officer, Further enquir)r contin^ued after recordnig of fhe stateiuent of tlie petitioner a:id tlien otlier witnesses of fhe niaiiageraent T ere exainiaed. How tlie euquir}r is vitiated if it has been conipleted by adoptiag tliis process could not be poiated out by learned counsel for flie petitioner. I do not find aiiy force ra tliis argument also. It appeai's that no prejudice has been caused to fhe petitiouer if tlie enquiiy has been concluded in the above niaaner after givuig fuU opporfriinity 6f heaiiiig to the petitioner and the argiiraents of leanied counsel for tlie petitioner tliat tlie entit'e enquity vitiates on tliis ground cannot be iipheld, (9) Now commg to tiie last question as to tlie uon-siipply of docunients demanded by ftie petitioner vide annexure P-8, first of aU, his appUcation is to be seen, The contents of Anuexure P-8 would show that the petitioner had demanded fhe iastallatiou report^ Uterature aiid catalogue of Pay Loader No.Exc. 1002. it has been stated ia ttris appMcation that these dociinients are required to know aboiit the age of tiie machiiie. How tiiese docuinents are relevaat for the purpose of this enquir}7 has not been disclosed by the petitioner. WhUe dealmg the niatter ia case of Chayidrama Tewari -Vs- Union ofJndia AIR 1988 S.C. 117 ihe apex Court has held fhat: alt is drfficult to coiuprehend exhaustively tlie facts aiid circunistaaces which raay lead to violation of prmciples of natLiral justice or deiiial of reasonable opporturtity ofdefence. Tliis question must be determiaed on the facts aiid circuinstances of each case. WhUe considermg fhis question it has to be boine in raiad that a delmquent officer is entitled to liave copies of niaterial aiid relevant docunients only which inay iaclude the copy of statement of witnesses recorded during tlie irivestigation or prelunniar^' enquiry or the copy of aiiy other document which may have been reUed iii support of the charges. If a document has no bearing on the charges or if it is not relied by the enquiry officer to support flie chai'ges, or if such docuinent or material was not necessary for the cross examiaation ofwitaesses duiiag ttie enquuy, the officer caanot iasist upon the supply of copies of szich docunients, as the absence of copy of such docuinent will not prejudice. the deliiiquent officer/' (10) Non supply of fhe copies of docunients wliich are not relevant and which have no bearmg on charges or which are not reMed upon by the enquiry ofiicer to support the charges does not ainount to violation of pnnciples of natural justice. lu tlie present case also, the Uterature and catalogue of the said Pay Loader have got no relevaace wifh the facts ofthe case, -7 Counsel for tlie petitioner could not poiat out as to how these documents were relevant eith.er for fhe puiyose of supportiag the defence of fhe petitioner or for tlie purpose of cross examiiiation of the witnesses or for the purposes of proviag aiiy fact ia issue, Therefore, ia the opiaion of tiiis court, denial to supply of copies of tiiese docunieuts which have no beariag wifh. the charges of tlie case does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. (11) In the said facts and circurastan-ces ofthe case, I do not find aiiy nierit in. the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitiouer ia. fhis petition. The petitiou has no force aiid tlie same is disniissed. However, fhere shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao