VIRENDRA KUMAR CHANAKYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving under the respondents as a member of judicial service. The petitioner was lastly posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada (C.G.). During the service of the petitioner, when he was serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada, Bastar (C.G), a written complaint was made by unknown person against the petitioner to the respondent no.2. Pursuant to the above unnamed written complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the then District and Session Judge Dantewada Baatar (CCG) and the preliminary enquiry report was submitted before the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under auspension and the charges were framed against the petitioner alleging some misconduct while working in Judicial capacity on complaint lodged against the petitioner by an unknown person on 1/2/2013 alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dantewada on 10/12/2012, the competent authority and sub divisional Forest Officer Dantewada seized number of vehicles but the petitioner during the tenure of posting as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dantewada, when application for release of number of vehicles on supurdnama was filed before the court of the petitioner which was also opposed by the prosecution on the ground that intimation for initiation of confiscation proceeding has been sent by the competent authority but by ignoring the aforesaid intimation and legal provision the petitioner released the vehicle contrary to the law in order to extend undue favor/ extraneous consideration and thereby committed grave misconduct. In addition allegation of receiving huge amount as illegal gratification and release of sale amount of the confiscate teak wood to 3 different persons is also charged with. After the charges were framed against the petitioner and the relevant documents and list of witnesses were supplied, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dtd. 3/12/2013 denying the charges leveled against him and prayed for personal hearing. During the course of departmental enquiry, 4 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter no witnesses were examined from the petitioner's side and the proceeding was closed for final hearing. The petitioner filed a written argument on 21/4/2014 which was taken on record. Lastly the enquiry report dtd. 24/4/2014 was submitted before the respondent no.2 for its further consideration by the enquiry officer i.e. the then District and Session Judge Bastar and Jagdalpur. The complete departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer enclosed with the enquiry report dtd. 24/4/2014 was considered by the respondent no 2 and after consideration the respondent no 2 had directed to issue show cause to the petitioner as to why major punishment of dismissal from service under Clause (IX) of Rule 10 of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) rules 1966 may not be imposed upon the petitioner, calling reply of the same within 15 days of its receipt. The petitioner filed his detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 18.12 2014. After the reply was filed by the petitioner, the same was considered by the respondent no. 2 and on the recommendation of the respondent no.2 on the basis of departmental enquiry, the respondent no.1 has awarded major penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, which shall also be a disqualification for future employment under the Government, under Clause (IX) of Rule 10 of The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules 1966. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the order dtd. 12/5/2015 and preferred departmental appeal dtd. 5/8/2015 to the respondent no. 2 which was rejected vide order dtd. 16/10/2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dtd. 12/05/2015 is contrary to the material and evidence on record in the departmental enquiry therefore it is liable to be quashed. The charges leveled upon the petitioner have not been proved in evidence. In the cases of supurdnama of vehicle, in none of the cases the intimation in prescribed format regarding confiscation of vehicle was sent to the petitioner. In none of the intimation the name of the owner of the vehicle was correctly mentioned. So far as the charge of receiving huge amount as illegal gratification is concerned, that also remained unproved as there is no evidence either of giving or of taking any huge amount as illegal gratification for the purpose of passing any judicial order. There is no evidence on record either oral or documentary to substantiate this charge. The petitioner in his judicial capacity has passed all the orders mentioned in the article of charges with due sincerity and honesty applying judicial mind to the best of his knowledge and ability. The judicial order which he has passed may be an outcome of wrong application of mind or the law but this fact remains unproved in evidence that the judicial orders passed by the petitioners are outcome of any misconduct. If the judicial order which he has passed is contrary to the law then also it is always open to be corrected by the higher court in its revisional or appellate jurisdiction but awarding major penalty of dismissal from service in such facts and circumstances of the case is too harsh and required reconsideration by this Court. It is settled position that a judicial order may be right or wrong which is always open for challenge in the revisional or appellate jurisdiction, therefore the a judicial officer cannot be dismissed from service on this count alone until and unless it is proved that the judicial order has been passed with dishonest intention for any illegal gratification. This situation is completely lacking in the evidence of present case. The quantum of punishment awarded in the facts and circumstances of this case is too harsh and requires kind consideration of this Court. The petitioner was working as judicial officer since 1/3/1988 with due honesty and sincerity and has never tried to do anything against judicial discipline therefore in the facts and grounds mentioned above the orders dtd. 12/5/2015 and 16/10/2015 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in WPS No.493/2018, decided on 30/4/2018, parties being P. R. Dewangan vs State of Chhattisgarh and others.