AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension-Annexure-P/1 dated 27/04/2012 and also the chargesheet-Annexure-P/2
dated 28/04/2012.
The facts of the case in brief is that, the petitioner was working with the respondents as an Accountant and was posted under the respondent No.2.
That on 27/08/2007, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet wherein the main allegation against the petitioner was reproduced herein under:-
^^Jh vkj-vkj-iztkifr] ys[kkiky dk;kZy; lkekftd okfudh oueaMy] fcykliqj dks Lo;a dh lsok&iqfLrdk esa fcuk izek.k i= ds QthZ rjhds ls vuqlwfpr tkfr
^^Schedule Caste** izfofâ€V djkus ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr dks feykus okyh lqfo/kkvksa dk ykHk izkIr djus ds vkjksi ls vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA**
Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted and the Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur was appointed the enquiry officer who after a
detailed departmental enquiry submitted an enquiry report on 16/06/2011. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority i.e. the
Conservator of Forest, range Bilaspur vide his order dated 28/07/2011 passed the following order:-
^^vr% lEiw.kZ izdj.k ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds v/;;u i'pkr oueaMykf/kdkjh fcykliqj ds tkap miifRr ls lger gksrs gq, vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd%& vkns'k vkns'k
dzekad@LFkk-@167 @2011@fcykliqj@fnukad 27-07-2011 dk;kZy;hu dzekad 6262 fnukad 22-08-2007 }kjk Jh vkj-vkj-iztkifr] ys[kkiky dks tkjh vkjksi
i= ij vkjksi fl/n ugha ik;s tkus ij izdj.k lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA**
The petitioner was to retire from service on 30/04/2012. Barely 3 days before his retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide
Annexure-P/1 and a chargesheet was issued for the second time on 28/04/2012-Annexure-P/2. The charge levelled against the petitioner in the
second chargesheet is as under:-
vkjksi i=
^^Jh vkj-vkj-iztkifr] ys[kkiky dk;kZy; vuqla/kku ,oa foLrkj oueIMy] fcykliqj dks muds lsok vfHkys[k esa n'kkZ;sa tkfr /keZ ;k dkSe ds le{k
fgUnw&dqEgkj&'ksM~;qy dkLV fy[ks gksus dh iqfâ€V ds fy, ewy tkfr izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ds vkjksi ls vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA**
The second chargesheet Annexure-P/2 seems to have been issued again with the approval of Conservator of Forest i.e. the same officer who have
earlier exonerated the petitioner from the earlier departmental enquiry.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the second chargesheet is nothing but an act of victimization. That he has been charged for
the same offence again and again and that the second chargesheet for the same set of facts could not have been issued once when the departmental
enquiry was already held and concluded and have also attained finality. He further submits that except for twisting of words in the second
chargesheet, the substantive nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner appears to be same and the second chargesheet thus is not sustainable
in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed.
He further submits that the petitioner was appointed with the respondents as early as in the year 1978 and the charges levelled against the petitioner
now is only 3 days before his superannuation and thus the chargesheet also suffers from delay and latches and the same therefore deserve to be
quashed on that ground as well. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Kanailal Bera v. Union of India & Ors. [2007 11 SCC 580], Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2012 3 SCC 580] & R.N.Singh v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [2006 2 CGLJ 23] . All these 3 cases referred to by the counsel for the petitioner deal with the issue as to whether the
second chargesheet for the same set of facts could have been issued or not and in all the 3 cases, the petition have been allowed by the Supreme
Court as well as by this Court.
The State counsel however opposing the petition submits that, if we read the contents of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the nature of
charges being different, the second chargesheet cannot be said to be similar or for the same set of facts and therefore it was permissible to have been
issued and there is no illegality in the same. She further submits that, in the first chargesheet, the allegation was more of tempering with the service
book by adding caste of the petitioner as schedule caste which was inquired into and the subsequent charge which now has been issued is for non-
production of the caste certificate and as such the two charges levelled against the petitioner is entirely different and therefore it cannot be said that
the enquiry being proposed is for the same set of facts and thus prayed for rejection of the petition.
Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record what is necessary at this juncture is to refer to the finding of
disciplinary authority while passing the order on the enquriy report submitted by the enquiry officer in the earlier enquiry. The Conservator of Forest
who was the disciplinary authority on the earlier occasion in his finding has held as under:-
^^blh rjg ls cpko lk{; Jh 'kadj flag }kjk Hkh crk;k x;k gS fd Jh vkj-vkj-
iztkifr dk xzke lLrjk ukSjkstkckn] ftyk 'kgMksy ¼e-iz-½ ds ewy fuoklh Fks] tks ckn esa O;olk; djus ckgj pys x;sA e-iz- lkekU; iqLrd ifji= [k.M nks
e/; izns'k ds vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds varxZr 'kgMksy ftys esa dqEgkj tkfr ¼vuqdzekad&35½ vuqlwfpr tkfr ds varxZr vkrs gSA Jh vkj-vkj-iztkifr dh
tkfr dqEgkj gS] ftudk eq[; O;olk; feV~Vh dk crZu ,oa [kijk cukuk gSA bl izdkj Jh vkj-vkj-iztkifr] ys[kkiky dks muds mij vf/kjksfir vkjksi dk nksâ€kh
ugha ik;k tkuk tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk vius tkap fuâ€dâ€kZ esa ys[k fd;k x;k gSA**
Keeping in view the aforesaid finding of the disciplinary authority if we look into the charges which has now been levelled against the petitioner in
the second chargesheet it is apparently clear that it is of no consequence for the reason that it was already the finding of the disciplinary authority on
an earlier occasion that there also does not appear to be any tampering made by the petitioner. That from the evidence which were made available
during the enquiry proceedings earlier it has been reflected that the petitioner and his ancestors were from schedule caste and that they were by caste
“ Kumharâ€- the people who are involved in the making of “Potteries†and it was also the finding that the said caste to which the petitioner
was belonging was reflected at item 35 in the General Book Circular showing the different caste which fell under the schedule caste category.
On the basis of such finding, the enquiry which has now been contemplated becomes meaningless for the reason that it would be the same set of
evidence which would be required by the respondents to conduct an enquiry.
At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the three judgments of Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the petitioner. First is the case of
Nand Kumar Verma (Supra) wherein in paragraph 27, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
 “In spite of his explanation in the reply statement filed, the enquiry officer has proceeded with the enquiry proceedings and after completion of
the same, has submitted his report which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no justification
for conducting a second enquiry on the very charges, which have been dropped earlier. Even though the principle of double jeopardy is not applicable,
the law permits only disciplinary proceedings and not harassment. Allowing such practice is not in the interest of public service. In the circumstance,
we cannot sustain the impugned order reverting the appellant to the lower post. â€
Second is the case of Kanailal Bera (Supra) wherein in paragraph 6, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
 “Once a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be brought to its logical end meaning thereby a finding is required to be arrived
at as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of charges levelled against him or not. In a given situation further evidences may be directed to be
adduced but the same would not mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges levelled against him another inquiry
would be directed to be initiated on the selfsame charges which could not be proved in the first inquiry. â€
Third is the case of R.N.Singh (Supra) wherein in paragraph 15 & 16, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
 “15. It is a doctrine applied to give finally to 'lis' in original or appellate proceedings. The doctrine is substance means that an issue or a point
decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and re-agitated twice over.
A matter adjudicated, adjusted finally between the parties involving the same cause of action cannot be re-agitated again before the tribunal or
authority and is barred by principle of res-judicata.â€
Another aspect which cannot be ignored is the fact that whether an employee belongs to a particular caste as entered in the Service Book is
correct or genuine or not can only be enquired into by the High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committe and cannot be enquired by any other person. This
legal position stood established right from the land mark judgment in the case of Madhuri Patil and the subsequent cases decided by the Supreme
Court.
For this reason also the present chargesheet issued by the respondents may not be sustainable.
Given the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of second chargesheet by the respondents in respect of charges
which have already been enquired and concluded and findings have been arrived at by the disciplinary authority as is reflected in the preceeding
paragraphs, is not sustainable. The same is of no consequence and it becomes meaningless.
The chargesheet thus is not sustainable and the same therefore deserve to be and is accordingly quashed. The chargesheet also deserve to be
quashed on the ground of delay for the reason that admittedly, the petitioner was in service since 1978 onwards. The petitioner came under the control
of State of Chhattisgarh with effect from 2000. The petitioner was issued with a chargesheet of same nature in the year 2007. The petitioner
superannuated on 30/04/2012, the respondents all along waited till 28/04/2012 i.e. 2 days before his retirement for issuance of chargesheet directing
the petitioner to produce caste certificate.
Thus the impugned chargesheet also is bad in law on the ground of dealy and latches and the same therefore deserve to be interfered with on this
ground also.
Thus, the chargesheet stands quashed and all the subsequent proceedings also stands quashed. Consequences to follow.
The Writ Petition stands allowed.