Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Kumar Singh vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 9 April, 2026
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2983 of 2023
Judgment Reserved On : 06/02/2026
Judgment Delivered On : _09/04/2026
Ravindra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Prasad, Aged About 51
Years, R/o B/61 Jarhi Colony, Bhatgaon Area, Pratappur, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman -Cum -
Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Police Station - Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006.
2 - Director Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495006.
3 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Colliery Manager, Nava Para U.G. Mines, South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
SHYNA
AJAY
Digitally signed by
SHYNA AJAY
DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY,
o=PERSONAL,
st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN
2
5 - Sub Area Manager, Kalyani Sub Area, South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent- : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh Advocate
SECL
For Intervenor Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of this Petition, the petitioner challenges the show cause
notice dated 26.4.2023 (Annexure P/1) and the entirety of the
enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the
charge-sheet dated 23.7.2014.
2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in the petition :
10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire record pertaining to the case of the
petitioner.
10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the impugned show cause dated 26.04.2023 (received
on 02.05.2023) (ANNEXURE P-1) and the entire enquiry
proceedings against the petitioner with respect to
charge-sheet dated 23.07.2014.
10.3. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
3
declare the entire enquiry proceedings against thepetitioner as null and void being conducted contrary to
the provisions of standing orders and principles of
natural justice and direct the respondent authorities not
to proceed and take action against petitioner on the
basis of enquiry report.
10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the
petitioner including the cost of the petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally
appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-1, on 12.11.1992 under
the ‘land oustee quota’, after a thorough investigation of all the
relevant documents produced by the respondents. During the
tenure of service, the petitioner was promoted time to time based
on his eligibility and on fulfilling the requirements of the posts held
by him. Presently, the petitioner presently is working as Clerk
Grade-I. Previously, the respondents issued a Charge Sheet
dated 23.7.2014, alleging that a complaint has been received
against the petitioner to the effect that the acquired land was
recorded in the name of Samal S/o Dashrath Rajwar and the
petitioner had obtained his appointment by prepared a forged
genealogy (family tree). The respondents alleged that the action
of the petitioner constitutes misconduct under clause 26.1, 26.9
and 26.22 of the Standing Orders of the SECL. The petitioner
submitted his reply and denied the charges levelled against him.
During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner
4
instituted a civil suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the
defendants from interfering with his services. The petitioner stated
that he is the son of Mahendra Prasad, who was legally adopted
by Dashrath (father of Samal) Ultimately, the civil suit was
decreed in the petitioner’s favour. Complainant Ravi Rajware also
submitted a representation, in which he specifically stated that he
has made no complaint against the petitioner. During the enquiry
proceedings, the respondent authorities sought verification
regarding the petitioner’s relationship with the land oustee. After a
due enquiry, the revenue authorities gave a report corroborating
the family tree previously placed on record, confirming its
accuracy. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, after
conducting a formal enquiry, submitted a report dated 18.8.2015,
exonerating the petitioner of all charges. Subsequently, after a
substantial lapse of time, again a notice dated 7.2.2018 was
issued to participate in the enquiry with regard to the same
charge-sheet. The petitioner challenged the same by filing WPS
No.4161/2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2021.
The subsequent Writ Appeal No.161/2021 preferred was also
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.6.2021. Thereafter,
the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23.4.2021,
wherein, he again exonerated the petitioner finding that the
alleged charges were not found proved. Notwithstanding the
exoneration in the first enquiry, the respondent authorities issued
a second show cause notice dated 12.6.2021, against which, the
petitioner preferred WPS No.3299 of 2021, which was disposed of
5
by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2021 with certain
directions/observations. In the ensuing proceedings, the petitioner
submitted his reply, however, no final decision was taken by the
Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, again a fresh enquiry was
initiated vide order dated 12/13.2.2022 and a notice was issued to
participate in the said enquiry with respect to the same charge-
sheet. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated
21.2.2022 again exonerating the petitioner finding that the
charges have not been proved. Thus, the petitioner was
exonerated in all the three Departmental Enquiries. Consequently,
respondent No.5 issued the impugned Show Cause Notice dated
26.4.2023 stating that the misconduct was ‘found proved’ and
demanding a reply within a mere 72 hours. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
provision of law authorizing the Disciplinary Authority to constitute
successive enquiries or to conduct a de novo enquiry on the same
charges, as such, the entire proceedings are illegal and without
jurisdiction. He further submits that notwithstanding the fact that
the charges were not proven, the Disciplinary Authority issued a
fresh show cause notice with a premeditated intent to impose a
penalty. He submits that the said notice is biased and
proceedings are liable to be quashed. He further submits that a
fresh enquiry cannot be initiated solely on the grounds that the
Disciplinary Authority dissents from the findings of the Enquiry
Officer without assigning any cogent reasons for such
disagreement. In support of his submissions, learned counsel or
6
the petitioner would place reliance on the judgments rendered in
the matters of M/S. Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33, M/s. Techno Prints Vs.
Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation and another reported in
2025 INSC 236, Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana,
reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 517, Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs.
Union of India and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 and
K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong,
reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102. He lastly submits that the
allegations of misconduct are unsustainable, especially
considering that various officials of the respondent-SECL had
exonerated the petitioner across three separate enquiry reports
conducted at different points in time.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instant writ
petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. The impugned
show cause notice dated 26.04.2023 issued by Sub Area
Manager, Kalyani Sub Division, SECL, only directs the petitioner
to submit reply and it does not constitute an adverse order
affecting the rights of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner
fails to establish a valid cause of action. He further submits that
the petitioner has not been able show any illegality in the issuance
of show cause notice nor it has been shown that that the authority
acted beyond its jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner
being employed as Clerk Grade-I falls within the definition of a
‘workman’ under the Company’s Standing Orders and the
7
petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise an
industrial dispute before the appropriate forum under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority is
providing the petitioner a full opportunity of being heard. By
issuing the show cause notice along with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, the authority has called for the petitioner’s
explanation not only on the findings but also on the tentative
reasons for the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the
Enquiry Officer’s report. He also submits that the petitioner will
have an ample opportunity to prove his case before the
Disciplinary Authority regarding his relationship with the original
landowner and his status as a direct lineal descendant. The
above evidence and related facts shall be duly considered by the
concerned authority at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
He submits that if the enquiry officer holds that the charges are
not established, such findings are not binding upon the
Disciplinary Authority. He also submits that the Disciplinary
Authority remains the final authority to adjudicate upon the guilt or
innocence of a delinquent public servant. The Disciplinary
Authority is not bound by the findings or recommendations of
enquiry officer. He further submits that instead of submission of
representation/reply, the petitioner has prematurely approached
this Court by filing the instant petition. He submits that a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not
ordinarily be entertained for quashing a Show Cause Notice or
Charge Sheet, except in cases involving lack of jurisdiction or
8
manifest illegality. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
for the respondent would place reliance on the judgments
rendered in the matters of Union of India and others Vs.
Upendra Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357, Union of India
and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12
SCC 28 and S. Janaki Iyer Vs. Union of India reported in (2025)
8 SCC 696. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents prays to
dismiss the petition.
6. I heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings
along with the relevant documents annexed to the petition.
7. From a bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 26.4.2023, it
appears that the same was issued to the petitioner seeking his
explanation regarding an allegation that the petitioner obtained
service/employment with the SECL by purportedly representing
himself as a nominee for acquisition of land bearing Khasra
No.52/2 area 0.035 hectares situated at Village Datima, Tehsil
Surajpur, belonging to one Samal S/o Dashrath. During the earlier
enquiry, the petitioner had clarified that Dashrath (father of Samal)
had adopted the petitioner’s father Mahendra Prasad, thereby
establishing the petitioner as the nephew of Samal. However, it
was stated in the impugned notice that a perusal of the submitted
documents and family tree indicates that the petitioner is not
found to be a Direct Lineal Descendant as per letter No.CIL/C-
5/53114/3W dated December 1984 issued by the Coal India and
letter No.WCL/IR/281, dated 12.12.1984 issued by the Western
Coal Fields Ltd., Nagpur, according to which, employment
9
assistance in lieu of land acquisition can be granted only to direct
lineal dependents of the landholder. It was further stated that at
the time the petitioner secured employment, the land in question
was neither recorded in the name of Dashrath nor in the name of
the petitioner’s father – Mahendra. The petitioner provided
conflicting information with regard to his address as his service
record list his address as Village Datima PS Jainagar, PO
Datima, District Sarguja (MP), whereas his Leave Travel
Concession (LTC) declarations list his address as Bhagalpur,
Bihar and by declaring this subsequent address, the petitioner
availed the LTC benefits. Based on the aforementioned findings,
the respondent authorities stated that prima facie the petitioner
acted in violation of 26:1 of the Standing Orders of SECL and
also against para 15 of the Appointment Order dated 12/13 th of
November 1992.
8. Furthermore, when a preliminary enquiry was conducted, it was
found that the petitioner did not furnish correct facts. It was
alleged that the petitioner had affixed his thumb impression on the
entire service documents to project illiteracy, whereas subsequent
verification established that he is educated, having successfully
completed his Intermediate Examination (Class XII). Such act of
the petitioner constitutes that he has committed misconduct and a
breach of discipline, which is in violation of clause 26:9 and 26:22
of the Standing Orders. Consequently, in order to ensure
compliance of the principles of natural justice, a show cause
notice was issued to afford the petitioner an opportunity to submit
10
his explanation. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said notice, the
petitioner rushed this Court challenging the same seeking judicial
intervention. Subsequent to the charge sheet dated 23.7.2014, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 18.8.2015.
However, on the basis of such report, acting upon a suggestion
given by the General Manager (Vigilance) for conducting a fresh
enquiry against the petitioner, a re-enquiry was initiated dated
31.1.2018 with an Assistant Manager appointed as Management
Representative along with the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a notice
was issued on 7.2.2018, directing the petitioner to participate in
the enquiry. Later on, one Ravi Rajware (complainant) submitted
an application stating that his name has been misused and he
had never made any complaint against the petitioner.
9. Against the show cause notice dated 7.2.2018, the petitioner
preferred WPS No.4161/2020 before this Court. However, the said
petition was dismissed vide 31.3.2021 reserving liberty in favour
of the petitioner to assail any order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority on the basis of the subsequent enquiry and the Enquiry
Report, detrimental to the interest of the petitioner, at a later
stage. Being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed
WA No.161/2021, which was also dismissed vide order dated
18.6.2021, as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared
before the Enquiry Officer made submissions with regard to falsity
of charges, while submitting the documents thereof. The Enquiry
Officer subsequently submitted his Enquiry Report dated
23.4.2021 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges levelled
11
against him. Nevertheless, it reveals that the respondent
authorities, being unsatisfied with these exonerated findings, have
issued yet another show cause notice dated 12.6.2021, directing
him to submit a fresh reply. The petitioner again rushed to this
Court and filed WPS No.3299/2021, which was disposed of vide
order dated 6.7.2021 with a direction permitting the petitioner to
submit his explanation before the Disciplinary Authority. Further,
the concerned authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s
explanation and pass an appropriate order on its own merits. In
compliance with the above direction, the petitioner has filed his
reply to the show cause notice dated 12.6.2021. After submission
of his reply to the second show cause notice, a fresh enquiry
(third enquiry) was directed on the basis of the same charge
sheet. In that enquiry, an Enquiry Officer was appointed as also
one Mr. R.K. Prasad was appointed as a Management
Representative. After submission of the reply by the petitioner,
the Enquiry Report dated 21.2.2022 was submitted, wherein it
was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner under
clause 26:1, 26:9 and 26:22 of the Standing Orders were not
proved. The aforesaid sequel/chronology of events shows that the
respondent authorities have repeatedly issued notices against the
petitioner on the same set of allegations. Although the petitioner
approached this Court on multiple occasions to challenge the
legality of these notices, he was directed to submit his
explanation and participate in the proceedings. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted his replies, and ultimately, the allegations
12
levelled against the petitioner were not found to be proved in the
various Enquiry Reports.
10. It is a well settled principle of law that under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Courts generally may not interfere at the
stage of a show cause notice. However, in appropriate cases,
even at the stage of show cause notice, the interference is
warranted when the same is issued without jurisdiction or is
vitiated by malafide and there is abuse of process of law.
11. In the present case, a pattern of repetitive litigation has emerged,
wherein successive show cause notices have been issued against
the petitioner on the same set of allegations. Though the
challenge to the said show cause notices in earlier writ petitions
did not result in their quashing, he duly complied with the
directions of this Court, participated in the enquiry process and
submitted his replies. Furthermore, on two occasions, the
authorities of the SECL exonerated the petitioner finding no merit
in the charges and in some instances, the authorities of the SECL
themselves have recommended the closure of the proceedings
and exonerated the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents
themselves that the charges levelled against the petitioner were
not found proved during the course of enquiry. When the specific
enquiry reports 18.8.2015, 23.4.2021 & 21.2.2022 filed by the
respondent authorities themselves, exonerated the petitioner, the
issuance of a subsequent show cause notice dated 26.4.2023
would be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner cannot be victimized
for the errors or procedural lapses of the respondent authorities.
13
Had the enquiry reports remained pending or did not exonerate
the petitioner, the legal position might differ. However, since the
respondents own enquiries have consistently exonerated the
petitioner, the matter must be treated as concluded and final.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner has been subjected to show cause
notices again and again, to which replies have been filed the
petitioner. Though certain enquiries were conducted, wherein
the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be unsubstantiated, but
the respondent authorities have persistent in issuing fresh notices
to the petitioner. Apparently, this continuous process constitutes a
grave injustice against the petitioner.
13. The relevant clauses 26:1, 26:9 and 26:22 respectively of the
Standing Orders of the SECL are relevant and are reproduced
below :
26:1 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the
employer’s business or property
26:9 Giving of false information regarding one’s name,
age, father’s name, qualification etc. in connection
with his employment.
26:22 Any wilful and deliberate act which is
subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental
to the interests of the company.
14. Similarly, clause 28:1 of the Standing Orders, which stipulates the
procedure for conducting a procedural enquiry, reads as under :
14
28:1 Where an employee is charged with a misconduct
he shall be informed in writing of the allegations
against him by the competent authority and shall be
given an opportunity to submit his explanation in
writing within a period of not less than three days. On
receipt of a workman’s explanation when allegations
are denied by him, an enquiry shall be held, normally
by an Officer or Officers of the company appointed by
the management. At the enquiry, the workman
concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of
defending himself. The workman concerned shall be
entitled to be represented or assisted by a co-worker
or office bearer of a trade union of which he is a
member if so requested by him during the enquiry.
15. In in the matter of M/S. Siemens Ltd. (Supra), the following was
held in para 9:
9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition
questioning a notice to show cause unless the same
inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as
has been held by this Court in some decisions
including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2
SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC
943] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004)
3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of
India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 :
(2006) 12 Scale 262] , but the question herein has to be
considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is
issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be
maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs
the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh,
ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful
purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [(1987) 4
SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686] .) It
15
is evident in the instant case that the respondent has
clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the
counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause
notice.
16. So far as the permissibility of second or third enquiry is
concerned, in a judgment rendered in the matter of K.R. Deb
(Supra), the following was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
para 12 & 13 thereof :
12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really
provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a
particular case there has been no proper enquiry because
some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some
important witnesses were not available at the time of the
inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the
Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record
further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for
completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground
that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not
appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary
Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence
itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9.
13. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action
such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962.
It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking
responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer
to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted
was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing
to the appellant.
17. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the light of the
16
principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is evident
that the contention of the respondent-SECL that the present
petition is not maintainable as it only challenges a show cause
notice, is legally tenable only as a general rule and not an
absolute bar. The maintainability of a challenge in such instances
varies from case to case, depending upon the facts of each case.
When an authority issues repeated show cause notices and after
submission of replies and subsequent enquiries, the charges are
not found to be proved, interference by a Writ Court is
permissible. Here, the enquiries were conducted by the officers
of the SECL at different point of time, who, upon conclusion,
submitted the enquiry reports exonerating the petitioner of all the
charges levelled against him. The repeated issuance of show
cause notice is, therefore, unwarranted and prejudicial. Having
reached a definite conclusion in the initial investigation, the
authorities were duty-bound to consider all aspects of the matter
at the first instance, rather than entertaining subsequent, repetitive
complaints on the same set of facts.
18. Evidently, whenever a complaint is made against the petitioner,
the authorities act with undue haste to issue a show cause notice.
Further, it is observed that with each change in administration,
fresh complaints are entertained, resulting in a vexatious cycle of
repetitive show cause notices and enquiries, only for such
proceedings to be eventually dropped. Once the SECL
authorities have concluded that the charges against the petitioner
are not proved, it is legally impermissible to again and again
17
entertain complaints of a similar nature on the same subject
matter.
19. The petitioner was appointed way back on 12.11.1992. At the time
of appointment itself, the authorities ought to have verified the
documents submitted by the petitioner. Furthermore, the return
filed by the respondents does not disclose as to whether any
show cause notice was ever issued against the officers of the
SECL responsible for the petitioner’s appointment or against
those who subsequently conducted the enquiries and exonerated
him. If the enquiry reports submitted by the enquiry officers were
deemed incorrect, the respondent-SECL ought to have issued
show cause notices to the said officers, seeking an explanation
as to how and under which circumstances the petitioner was
exonerated. However, a bare perusal of the entire record reveals
no such action; instead, it appears that the respondent-SECL is
initiating fresh show cause notices based on repetitive
complaints. Once a delinquent employee has been exonerated,
the matter must reach finality. In the present case, the petitioner
has already been exonerated on three separate occasions yet he
is being again subjected to the impugned show cause notice
based on the same set of allegations. Consequently, the
issuance of a fresh show cause notice based on the same
subject matter is legally impermissible. While the issuance of a
show cause notice generally falls within the administrative domain
of the authorities, it remains subject to judicial scrutiny when an
employee invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of a Writ Court
18
seeking its quashment. Such intervention is warranted where the
notice is issued without jurisdiction, is ex-facie arbitrary or
constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
20. Furthermore, it would be pertinent to mention here that the
petitioner previously instituted Civil Suit No.65A/2014 seeking a
mandatory and permanent injunction against illegal interference
with his service. The concerned trial Court vide the judgment and
decree dated 20.4.2015, decreed the suit in favour of the
petitioner (plaintiff) and issued a permanent injunction restraining
the SECL from passing any illegal orders or act in violation of the
prescribed procedure of law. This judicial decree remains in force
and is binding upon the respondents.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned show cause
notice (Annexure P/1) issued against the petitioner is hereby
quashed.
22. Consequently, the Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay
The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved judgment is uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
6.2.2026 09.04.2026 —— 13.4.2026
19
WPS No. 2983 of 2023
HEAD NOTE
Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show
cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without
jurisdiction, however, when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ
petition would be maintainable.
