RISHI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the orders dtd. 12/9/2011 (Annexure P/1), 20/12/2011 (Annexure P/2), 27/2/2012 (Annexure P/3) and 22/8/2012 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent authorities. The punishment of termination from service was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dtd. 12/9/2011. Against this order, the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dtd. 21/1/2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed mercy appeal which was also dismissed against which the petitioner filed revision petition which too was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Head Constable at 4th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force. One complaint was made by Santosh Chiraman who was also working as a constable along with the petitioner. This complaint was about demand of money for providing employment to son-in-law from the complainant Santosh Chiraman. On this complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shri V.K. Driwedi, Assistant Commandant on 2/9/2010 and it was found that the petitioner, complainant Santosh Chiraman and Bhola Ram Naik are involved in the illegal demand of money. On receiving this report, respondent No.5 i.e Commandant issued the charge-sheet against the petitioner but no charge-sheet was issued against Santosh Chiraman and Bhola Ram Naik. Thereafter, on receiving the charge-sheet, petitioner categorically denied all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority appointed Shri V. P. Sharma, Deputy Commandant 4th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force Mana as an Enquiry Officer on 17/12/2010. The Enquiry Officer without following the procedure of conducting departmental enquiry and without giving proper opportunity of hearing as well as without considering the submission and defence raised by the petitioner during the course of enquiry submitted his finding. i.e. enquiry report of the Commandant on 16/5/2011 wherein the charge No.1 was found partly proved and charge No.2 was found to be proved. On receiving the said enquiry report, disciplinary authority had supplied copy of enquiry report and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on 15/7/2011. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation but the disciplinary authority without considering the submission and explanation of the petitioner imposed the penalty of removal from the service vide order dtd. 12/9/2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority/ respondent No.4 but vide order dtd. 20/12/2011, it was dismissed. Then the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal/second appeal before respondent No.3 and vide order dtd. 27/2/2012, the same was again rejected by the respondent authority. Against the order dtd. 27/2/2012, petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 in a very casual manner, rejected the review of the petitioner by non-speaking order dtd. 22/8/2012. Hence this petition filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental enquiry is suffering from infirmities as the disciplinary authority did not appoint any presenting officer to prosecute the case of the department whereas in the instant case the enquiry officer himself acted as an investigator, prosecutor/presenting officer and prosecuted the case on behalf of the management/department which is in complete violation of the principle of natural justice. It is settled law that the enquiry officer should not act as presenting officer as well as enquiry officer. The respondent authorities in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner as well as biased and prejudicial manner, issued charge-sheet only to the petitioner whereas in the preliminary enquiry as held by the respondent authority, complainant namely Santosh Chiraman and Bhoj Ram Naik were also found to be involved in the illegal and doubtful transaction of the demand of money but charge-sheet was not issued against them. The disciplinary authority did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In enquiry report, the charge No.1 is partly proved but disciplinary authority in most arbitrary and pre-determined manner without any material held that charge no.1 is found to be fully proved.