In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice, the Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a disciplinary punishment order against a retired deputy ranger, citing procedural lapses, including the failure to provide the inquiry report to the petitioner before imposing the penalty.
The order was passed by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu in Writ Petition (Service) No. 290 of 2019, filed by G.L. Mishra, a retired deputy ranger from Korba district, Chhattisgarh, against the State of Chhattisgarh and its forest department officials. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Vipin Tiwari, while State Panel Lawyer Ritesh Giri appeared for the respondents.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 1988, when the petitioner, then a forester, was supervising bamboo felling operations in Coupe “C” of Jatga North Bilaspur Division. Due to an alleged mistake by laborers under his supervision, bamboo was felled outside the designated area, leading to an inquiry. It was claimed that 344 trees had been felled illegally, and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
The disciplinary authority, without providing him a copy of the inquiry report, imposed a penalty of reducing his pay scale to the minimum. His appeals were dismissed, prompting him to challenge the decision before the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of defense due to the non-supply of the inquiry report before the imposition of punishment. The court examined whether this omission violated the principles of natural justice and contravened the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The petitioner relied on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588], which established that failure to furnish the inquiry report before imposing punishment constitutes a violation of natural justice.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Chhattisgarh High Court noted that the State failed to provide any evidence that the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before the punishment order was issued. The court emphasized that:
“Wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority holding the delinquent guilty, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and an opportunity to make a representation against it. Non-furnishing of the report amounts to a violation of natural justice and renders the final order liable to challenge.”
The court also referred to a State Government circular dated August 20, 1992, which mandates that before imposing any punishment, a delinquent officer must be provided with the inquiry report and an opportunity to submit a representation.
In light of these findings, the court quashed the punishment order dated December 31, 1991, and the subsequent appellate order dated April 7, 2018, citing procedural irregularities. The case was remitted back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to reconsider the matter after supplying the inquiry report to the petitioner and allowing him to file a representation.
