SANTYOSH KUMAR DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 20th September, 2011 (Annexure P/l), alongwith charge-sheet, article of charges and list of documents and witnesses, for initiating a departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication of the lis involved in this petition are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Collector, Raigarh at the relevant time, according to him he was allocated inter alia, the work of Nazul Officer. The petitioner was authorized to assess the Nazul tax on the basis of applications and after completing the entire process of calling objection and issuance of advertisement, Nazul tax is assessed. It is further submitted that one Inder Pal Singh Bhatia. ;waue an arp!i:.'t; m on 19 ' Januai;, 2005 which was registered as Revenue Case No. 3 l/A-4/2004-05 and after following the due process, the entire case was submitted before the Collector, who in turn, accorded approval on 18lh August, 2005 (Annexure P/2). There were complaints made against the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector, Shi"' S.L.Ratre on the basis of complaint dated 031'1 March, 2007. Shri Ratre submitted his enquiry report on 11th May, 2007 to the Collector, Raigarh, holding that the documents submitted by the complainant were not correct and as such, it was found that there was no irregularity. The complaint of. the respondent No. 5 was not found correct and based en no material. Subsequently, another enquiry was conducted by Shri A.N.Ekka, Additional District Magistrate, Raigarh, who, vide his report dated 14.06.2007. held that the complaint was false. Another enquiry was conducted by the City Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, and by communication dated 25.07.2007, he also informed the Superintendent of Police. Raigarh, that there was no error in the report filed by Shri Ratre and no irregularity has been found. The Government, thereafter, further directed an enquiry to be conducted by the, then, Nazul Officer, Raigarh, who submitted his report on 13th August, 2007 (Annexure P/6) holding that the conduct of the petitioner in respect of nazul land which was transferred to other person, was not proper and allegation was proved.

(3.) SHRI Sharma would further submit that the show cause notice was prepared earlier also in the year 2009 (Annexure P/14) on the same charges which was responded to by the petitioner. Thus, the instant entire proceedings leading to issuance of the show cause notice with charge sheet, is vitiated and the same was done with malafide intention. Shri Sharma would further contend that the impugned show cause notice was issued with an inordinate delay with an intention to harass the petitioner and since action of the petitioner as Nazul Tax Officer was in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings, the same cannot be questioned in a departmental enquiry. Calling various reports from various authorities time and again tantamounts to malafide exercise of power. In support of his contention, Shri Sharma relies on decision of the Supreme Court in A.L.Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.[AIR 1984 SC 1361], R.C.Sood v. High Court of Judicature at Raj as than and Others[AIR 1999 SC 707], Zimjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and Others[AIR 1999 SC 2881], Chairman and M.D. Bharat Pet. Corpn. Ltd. and Others v. T.K.Raju[AIR 2006SC 3504], Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal[AIR 1971 SC 752] and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and Others v. Anant Saha and Others[(2011) 5 SCC 142].