« a n : w w g m $ W g ’ g y x . . . . . . . . . . , h a w £ F § R E . T H E - H O N ’ B L E ¥ T H I G H B I L A S P U R C O U R T O F C H H A T T I S G A R H W R I T P E T I T I O N ( S ) N o . S 3 L ! 7 i ( 2 0 0 8 w / P E T I T I O N E R R a m P r a s a d B a n g r e , a g e d a b o u t 5 6 — \ y e a r s , s o n o f L a t e S u g a n L a l B a n g r e , o c c u p a t i o n — E n g r ( E / M ) D e p a r t m e n t , S a i M a n d i r , J a g d a l p u r , r e s i d e n t o f $ S r . M . I . G . S e r v i c e , A s s t S u b D i v i s i o n P . H . E . D h a r a m p u r a , N e a r 7 , H e u s i n g B o a r d \ C o l o n y , B o d h g h a t , J a g d a l p u r ( C G ) a € ° g ‘ \ * \ 3 w “ R y E R s u s R E / \ S P O N D E N T S 0 1 . S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h , t h r o u g h t h e s e c r e t a r y , D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c H e a l t h E n g i n e e r i n g ( D a u K a l y a n S i n g h B h a v v a n , R a i p u r ( C G ) S u p e r i n t e n d i n g E n g i n e e r M a n d a l P . H . E . D e p a r t m e n t ( C G ) E x e c u t i v e E n g i n e e r ( V i / Y a ) S u b B l o c k , M a n d a l , P . H . E . D e p a r t m e n t J a g d a l p u r , D i s t r i c t B a s t a r ( C G ) O 2 . ( V / Y a ) R a j p u r K » 0 3 . W R I T P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 O F T H E \ E ‘ H x C O N S T I T U T I O N ‘ E O F I N D I A _ HiGHCQuRTOFCHHMTriaGAiRiH : BiLASPUn SiNQLE BENCH : HON'SLE SHRi MAhiiNJRA MOHAN SHRJVASTAVAJ. PcTiJiONER RESPGNDENTS PETiTiONER RESPOhlDENTS WRiT PETiTJOhi (Si NO.S347/20G8 Ram Prasad Bangre Versus ' State of Chhattisgarh and otners AND WRIT PETiTiON (S) N0.4284/201 u Ram Prasad BanQi-e Versus State of Chhattlsgarh and others FOR PRONOUNCE^ENT OF ORDER ON I^ NQVEMBER' 20lu Sd/- Manmdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : B8LASPUR Sinale Bendi: Hon'bfe Shri Manindi'a Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETfTIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETSTION (S) NO.&347/2G08 Ram Prasad Bangre Versus State of Chhattisgarh and omers WR5T PETSTiON (Sl N0.4264/2010 Ram Prasad Bangre Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others WRiT PETITION UfrJlGER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CQjstSSTUTION OF INDIA Present: - Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta. Govemment Adyocate forthe State. ORDER ' (Passed on. .K.^.. November, 2010) The aforesaid two petitions have been fij6d by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of recovery and initiation of departmentai enqijtiry. As both ttie petitions are reiated to the same transaction, two petitions are being disposed off by this common order. 2. W.P.(S)No.5347/08 has been fiied by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23/1/07 (Annexure P/9) and letter dated 29/11/03 (Annexure P/4) issued in purported compiiance of order dated 20/09/07 passed in W.P(S) No.969/07. In this petition, petitioner has chailenged the impugned order by which recovery of Rs.64,140/- has been ordered against Misceilaneous Advance, alieged to be taken by the petitioner. While this petition remained pending, respondents J 'l^c^l l 1 ^^••"'"'j |. \.^'€/' rfB » proceedecS to issue a charge sheet to the peutjoner on 11/5/2010 which has been chaiSenged byfdingwrit petition, W.P.(S) No.4264/10. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that in the year 2003, in the matter of purchase of diesel, certain queries were made and show cause notice was issued on 5/11/03 requiring the petitioner to submit explanation regarcSing issuance of diesel. This was fojiowed by another show cause notice dated 20/11/03 and the petitioner again submitted his repiy. On 25/1 1/03, a Setter was issued stating that the entire payments made under voucher no.104 dated 21/08/03 and voucher no.113 dated 21/08/03 are treated as Misceilaneous Advance against the name of the petitioner. Then, after a gap of about three years, a letter was issued on 07/08/06 requiring the petitioner to fumish information concerning same transaction which was reptied by the petitioner but thereafter a ietter has been issued on 23/01/07 directing recovery against tj-ie petitioner. Now a charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner on 11/05/2010, in respect of the same transaction alieging commission of misconduct under the charge stated in the charge sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the matter was inquired into in the past, the same cou(d not be reopened after seven years nor could a charge sheet be issued making allegations. Learned counsei for the petitioner argues that respondents have accepted the expianation submitted by the petitioner in the matter of purchase of diesel in the year 2003 and therefore initiation of enquiry on the same set of allegations is wholiy unwarranted in excess of authority, rnaiafide act, harassment and victimization. o^ _ ^ECS^ ,^',.^ ^^ .-•^^'^. ^ :-w 5. On the other hand, ieamed counsei for ti-ie State argued that the respondents have oniy opened a departmentai enquiry against the petitioner in which the petitioner has been afforded opporlunifry to fiie his repiy and at iibeily to raise his defence in the departmentai enquiry. Decision wiii be laken oniy after givjng petitioner due and proper opportunity of hearing and arter considering the defence of the petitioner. Learned counsei for the State submjtted that in the past, no departmentai enquiry has been initiated in respect of transaction stated in the charge sheet. Though expianations were caiied from the petitioner and at that time, it was ordered that an arnount of Rs.64,140/- against two disputed purchases is kept as misceilaneous advances against the narne of the petitionet, no proceedings were initiated alieging any misconduct nor any penaity was imposed for any misconduct and therefore, it cannot be said that the matter was eariier inquired into nor can it be said that on the same charge, petitioner has been subjected to departmentai enquiry again and again. 6. in W.P.(S) No.5347/08, petitioner has chaiienged order dated 23/1/07 (Annexure P/8) by which recovery has been o'dered. Later on, when the said recovery ordered was chaiienged by fiiing wrat petition-W.P(s) No.869/07, vide order dateci 20/09/07, petition was disposed off wlth the observanon that pending representations shaii be disposed off by the authorities. 7. Vide Annexure P/14, Superintending Engineer Informed the petitioner that the case of the petitioner has been forwarded to the higher authoriry. Finaliy, charge sheet has now been issued to the peti^oner on 11/5/10 which has been assaiied in W.P.(S) No.4-264/10. '^ •'! ^w^y |"Wi«irNtlN 8. The grourtfis which have been raised b^ the petitioner to seek quashing of the charge sheet are that the aSSegations pertain to transaction reSating to purchase of diesel in the year 2003, in respect of which eariier certain explanations were caiied and the matter was finaiiy dosed. However, none of the documents fiied by the petitjoner in any of the two writ petitions show that the matter was finairy decided in any enqujry by the competent discipjinary authority of the petitioner. Letter dated 25/11/03 (Anriexure P/5) in W.P.(S) No.5347/0o issued by Executive Engineer oniy states that payments against voucher no.104 and 113 are kept under the head-Misceiianeous Advance against the petitioner. The Executive Engineer adrnitiedSy is not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. in the year 2006, the Superintending Engineer issued a notice on 7/9/06 (Annexure P/6) to the petitioner requiring certain irrformation which was repjied by the petitioner. Vide order dated 23/01/'07 (Annexure P/9), recovery against MisceSlaneous Advance as ordered eariier was directed. A perusal of departmentai note sheets fiied as Annexure P/12 shows that certain notes were recorded in t'ne note sheet by the then Executive Engineei. it wouid thus appear that the matter was not finaiiy settied at departmentai ievei and there is nothing to show that the competent discipiinaiy authority ever considered or finaiiy ciosed the matter in the past. The recovery ietter dated 23/01/07 has aiso been issued which is stated to be against Misceiianeous Advance. The said jetter does not amount to imposition of penaity on any aiiegations of misconduct proved in any departmentai enquiry. Therefore, there is no nnerit in the subrnission or leamed counsei for the petitioner that the matter was inquired into and it was brought to an end jn the past. ,r^: 9. in the pieadings made and grounds raised under the two petitions, petitioner has tried to demonstrate that he is not responsibte for uie aiieged purchase transactions and it has aiso been argued by Searned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being deprived of his promotion and very soon, he is retiring from service aiso. Aii such pieadings made in the petition and various documents fiied are the defence of the petitjoner which can very weii b©raised by ttie petitioner during the course of enquiry. it is not the case of the petitioner that the authority who issued the charge sheet lacks jurisdiction and competence nor there is any aiiegation of personai maiice against the authorifry who has issued the charge sheet dated 11/5/10. He is not even impieaded in hss personai capacity. After going through the charge sheet, it cannot be said th&t even ir the ailegations of fact containeu in the charge sheet are taken as it is, no misconduct ismadeout. 10. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, no grounds warranting interference with the departmentai enquiiy are made out. Whatever defence are avaiiable to the petitioner inciuding the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in his pieadings in these petitions can very weii be raised by the petitioner by filing a repiy to the charge sheet in the departmentai enquiry. The respondent authority shaii afford due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to iead his defence. 11. Learned counsei for the petitioner jastiy submitted that because of the pendency of the departmentai enquiry, his promotion would be adverseiy affected and as he is retiring in near future, respondent may be directed to expedite and conclude the enquiry within a reasonabie period. ,;M' 1 •^ ^^-^ '.fj- v^. tHwsy'^ '• /^- ^^' y ^^-!' 12. The prayer made by leamed counsei for tiie petitioner appears to be reasonable. Looking to the fact that the matter reSating to disputed transaction is ijngering on for several years and the charge sheet issued is in respect of the transaction of the year 2003, taking into consideration other relevant circumstances and that the petitioner wiii be retiring aiso in near future, it would be expeciient in the interest of justice to direct respondents to conctude the enquiry against the petitioner wittiin a reasonable period. Petitioner would be at iiberfy to fiie detaiied reply to the charge sheet issued against him. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the two writ petitions are finaiiy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Dctspli T^