Pramod Kumar Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Saurabh Dangi and Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3.

This appeal is presented against an order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4519 of 2020 dismissing the writ petition, wherein challenge was mounted to a charge-sheet dated

10.2020. As the writ petition was dismissed in limine, in appeal, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were permitted to file reply.

An advertisement dated 30.07.2012 was issued by the respondent No. 2 inviting applications for filling up 15 vacant posts of Assistant Manager. In General Category, 6 posts were notified out of which 02 posts were reserved for female candidates, 02 posts for Other Backward Category, 02 posts for Scheduled Caste and 05 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe.

Essential educational qualification was laid down in Clause 3 of the Advertisement, translated version of which reads as under :

“3.Essential Educational Qualifications:-

A) 50% in Aggregate in graduation from recognized University.

B) MBA (Marketing, HR, Finance) full-time 2 year regular course from institutions recognized by Government / AICTE / UGC. ”

The petitioner responded to the said advertisement indicating in the application that he had passed MBA (HR). The name of institute was shown as S.H.I.A.T.S., Allahabad University. The petitioner having been selected, was appointed as Assistant Manager on 19.12.2012 and was kept on probation for a period of two years.

As the petitioner was not regularized, seeking regularization, he had filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition (S) No. 4901 of 2018. It is pleaded in the memo of appeal that in the said writ petition, stand was taken by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner had completed his MBA through Distance Education Mode and not by regular mode.

On a query of the Court as to what was the out come of the said writ petition, Mr. Bhaduri, on instruction, submits that the writ petition had been withdrawn on 21.10.2021.

It is relevant to mention at this juncture that all the 15 appointments were terminated on 09.10.2014 on the ground that there was violation of reservation policy. However, such termination order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2016 passed in WA No. 433 of 2016 and the order was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 36115 of 2016 vide order dated 16.12.2016.

The learned Single Judge negated the contention advanced that issuance of charge-sheet after eight years of issuance of appointment order is unlawful on the ground that the question of the petitioner not fulfilling the qualifications prescribed, cannot be brushed aside. It was also noted that the petitioner had been out of service for a considerable period of time and therefore, no occasion had arisen for issuance of charge-sheet earlier.

Mr. Bhaduri submits that there was also a complaint with regard to qualification of the petitioner in the year 2014 and in this connection, he has drawn our attention to Annexure R-3, at page 253 of the appeal papers. It is submitted by him that such complaint was not pursued by the respondents and therefore, the respondents could not have initiated a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of another complaint dated 24.03.2017. In support of his contention that because of delay, the charge-sheet needs to be interdicted, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 07.04.2022 rendered in WA No. 188 of 2021 (Sanjay Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others).

Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the complaint received in the year 2014 was that his MBA degree was fake which is not the case at hand and therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhaduri is mis-conceived. The petitioner had not indicated in the application submitted by him in response to the advertisement that he had pursued MBA by the Distance Learning Mode and as such, the authorities were led to believe that the petitioner had pursued two years regular MBA course. He has further submitted that the enquiry proceeding is continuing for the last two years and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for with regard to the order of the learned Single Judge. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sacindra Nath Pandey and Others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 134.

We have considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

The complaint received in the year 2014 was to the effect that MBA degree of the petitioner was fake on the ground that the petitioner was working in some department while pursuing full-time MBA course while the complaint dated 24.03.2017 was suggestive of the fact that the petitioner had pursued MBA course in Distance Learning Mode. Therefore, the allegations in both the complaints were different. In that view of the matter, there is no force in the contention of Mr. Bhaduri that a similar complaint having not been pursued earlier, the respondents had issued the charge-sheet on a similar complaint only to harass the petitioner.

The charges leveled against the petitioner are to the effect that (i) the petitioner had studied MBA from Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Science, formerly known Allahabad Agriculture Institute, and had obtained the said degree through Distance Learning Mode whereas the eligibility as mentioned in the advertisement was 2 year regular MBA degree through full-time course and that (ii) the experience certificates submitted by the petitioner were doubtful. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had violated Section 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, for which he is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 14 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

In Sachindra Nath Pandey (supra), taking note of the fact that the charges were serious as it was alleged that the employee had taken over the records of the society and had absconded as also he had committed irregularities and misappropriated the funds of the society, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to close the matter only on the ground that 16 years had elapsed since the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings.

In Sanjay Singh (supra), this Court noted that though irregularities were pointed out in the audit report for the year 2007-2008, no steps were taken by the authorities for six-seven years and, that apart, in the fact finding enquiry report dated 25.04.2018, the appellant was not implicated. As disciplinary proceeding was initiated after 12 years of the alleged irregularities committed, having regard to the gross unexplained delay as also the observations in the enquiry report dated 25.04.2018, this Court opined that it would be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with.

In the facts of the present case, having regard to the nature of charges, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge not to quash the charge-sheet cannot be said to be a view which is not sustainable in law.

Any observation in this proceeding in respect of any matter touching upon the appointment of the petitioner may cause prejudice to either of the parties and therefore, we have refrained from making any observations in that regard.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.