Bhagwat Prasad Patel vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Bhagwat Prasad Patel, an Assistant Grade-III in the Commercial Tax Department, challenged a notice of initiation of departmental inquiry dated January 14, 2025, issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax (Respondent No. 2). The notice alleged that the petitioner's Class-8th mark sheet, submitted at the time of his appointment on September 30, 2013, was forged. The petitioner argued that his mark sheet was verified by the District Education Officer in 2014 and that a subsequent clarification from the Block Education Officer in December 2024 confirmed the verification was for Class-8th, despite an error in the 2014 report stating it was for Class-5th. The petitioner also claimed the inquiry was initiated due to a personal vendetta by an in-charge officer. He had been promoted to Assistant Grade-III on June 2, 2022.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature and liable to be dismissed. Citing several precedents from the High Court of Delhi (including cases like *S.N. Sharma v. Union of India*, *Inder Raj Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation*, and *Hari Chand v. D.T.C.*), the Court emphasized that courts are generally averse to interfering with departmental proceedings at interlocutory stages. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise all his pleas, including the alleged forgery and the correctness of the verification, during the departmental inquiry itself. The Court noted that the impugned notice included a charge-sheet and relevant documents, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect documents and file a reply within a specified time. Therefore, rushing to the court solely based on the issuance of the notice was inappropriate. The Court dismissed the petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file an appropriate reply, directing the authorities to grant an additional 15 days if more time is sought.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice of initiation of departmental inquiry dated January 14, 2025, issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax (Respondent No. 2) is liable to be quashed/set-aside as being against the law and premature. (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The notice is illegal and liable to be set-aside because the petitioner's Class-8th mark sheet was duly verified at the time of appointment and subsequently confirmed by the education department, despite a minor clerical error in a verification report. The inquiry is a result of personal animosity and is premature as the petitioner has not been afforded a fair opportunity to respond fully. The petitioner relies on his own submissions regarding the verification process and the subsequent clarification. Respondents' contentions: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the court's reasoning implies that departmental proceedings should generally be allowed to conclude before judicial intervention, and the petitioner has administrative remedies available.