RUPESH KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders dtd. 24/10/2013 (Annexure-P/1) and 18/4/2009 (Annexure-P/2) passed by respondent authorities.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that the petitioner was working as a constable in the year 2008, he was posted at police station Gariyaband, DistrictRaipur. On 12/4/2008 in-charge of the police station, Gariyaband arrested accused namely Mahendra Kumar Giri in Crime No. 29/2008 and after the search of Mahendra Kumar Giri, the Station House Officer seized one Goggle Rico Watch and a sum of Rs.300.00 cash and deposited the same at the police station. The police constable Amrit Kalasia went along with the accused to Court for producing him before the Court. The accused informed the constable that one Soni constable has kept a sum of Rs.7000.00 which belongs to the accused. Therefore, Amrit Kalasia informed the station house officer Gariyaband and when the aforesaid fact was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, he said to have admitted the receiving of aforesaid money and brought the same and based on the aforesaid fact a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner with allegation that by not depositing the amount of Rs.7,000.00 in the police station which was seized from accused Mahendra Giri on 12/4/2008, he rendered his integrity doubtful and as such comitted violation of Rule 3(1) of C.G. Civil Service (Conduct) Rule, 1956. After receiving the charge sheet (Annexure-P/3) the petitioner filed a detailed reply (Annexure-P/4) within time and categorically denied the allegation levelled against him. After that the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband was appointed as an enquiry officer and on 24/7/2008 he recorded the statement of the petitioner (Annexure-P/5) as well as some witnesses namely Dhaniram Netam and Sahnuram Tandi (Annexure-P/6). During the course of the inquiry, the petitioner sought some documents and for that purpose, he filed an application, some of the papers were provided to him, but the others were not provided to him. In the meanwhile, another enquiry officer was appointed and he examined the witnesses (Annexure-P/7).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority has not appointed any presenting officer to prosecute the case of the Department in respect of charges levelled against the petitioner and the enquiry officer himself acted as a Presenting Officer on behalf of the department as such there is a gross violation of the principle of natural justice. In the instant case, the enquiry officer acted as a presenting officer and also examined the witnesses and put them leading questions which cannot be done by an enquiry officer. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772, it is settled law that an enquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proven. In the present case, the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. It is also settled law apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India that the departmental inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. If the disciplinary authority/appellate authority imposes the major punishment upon the delinquent without recording reasons and by simply referring the findings of the enquiry officers, the said order stands vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules and principle of natural justice.