/ (Lff2.^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S)No. [%^ OF 2010. PETITIONERS \ .y0:^' y \^'i^'a/~ ^y ^^y ^.;^^- ^y- <^\-^ y .^'^ ..•' ^ ^:'' .^•"' ^•' RESPONDENTS ^SSSSlh. ^/^,^:% 1*L- '^f,\ "n; ^',v yt^^-^i^.^^'..^ ^.w"? ^'^'^.. :;?.>';. ^yj^s f';a>h^v-.-:" / :1. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, S/o. late Shri B.R. Sharma, aged about 42 years, R/o. Type-II, 413, Gandhi Nagar, Kirandul, Police Station Kirandul, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada, (C. G.) /2. Jordan Ram, S/o. Shri G. W. Ram, aged about 42 years, R/o. Ring Road No. 4, Kirandul, P. S. Kirandul, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS / 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Departinent, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C. G.) 2) Director, Directorate, Urban Administration and Developm.ent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C. G.) 3) Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada (C. G.) ^ 4) Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Kirandul, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C. G.) . 5) Emil Lakra, Additional Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioners named above beg to submit as under:- i:^K- ^ L^/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1834 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Dinesh KumarSharma & another RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others. (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Case of the petitioners is that on a complaint of certain persons, Sub- Divisional OffiCer, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada, submitted his report with regard to the alleged irregularities in regularization of the services ofthe petitioners along with other candidates on the post ofAssistant Grade-111. 2. One Shri Rajaram Tamo, Gandhi Nagar, Kirandul, made a complaint to the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur and on the basis of said complaint, Chief Municipal Officer, Kirandul, prepared a report. Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada, was directed to enquire into the complaint. The Sub-Divisional Officer after having examined the complaint, submitted his report to the Coltector holding that on the basis of the explanation submitted by the Chief Municipal Officer, Kurandul, all the complaints are baseless and are not supported by proved documents. On receipt of the complaint report of the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue),Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada, the Collector, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada, received further complaints. Accordingly, Additional Collector, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada, was directed by the Collector to enquire into the complaints made by one Shri Vikas Singh, New Colony 37, Kirandul and Shri Rajaram Tamo, Bangali Camp, ^'^^ Kirandul. The Additional Collector after having examined all the related documents and others came to the conclusion that appointment and regutarization of the employees in the year 2008-09, made by the Municipal Corporation, Kirandul, was not in accordance with law and was against the reservation rules. The petitioners were regularized on the post of Assistant Grade-111 on the basis of forged documents submitted by them without following rules and instructions of regularization issued by the Government. In the report dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P/10), it was found by the Additional Collector that the petitioners were regularized on the post of Assistant Grade-111 on the basis offorged documents. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once in the enquiry conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer, it has been found that there was no mistake on the part of the petitioners and the complaint was found baseless and unfounded. There was no occasion to direct re-enquiry by Additional Collector with regard to regularization of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that even the first enquiry was properly conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, in accordance with law. Thus, the second enquiry report dated 27-1-2010 (Annexure - P/10) submitted by the Additional Collector deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that no adverse order on the basis of enquiry report has been passed, thus, this petition is premature,at this stage and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is admitted fact that pursuant to the enquiry report dated 27-1-2010, noorder has been €is^/ ^y^^^ / Arun 6. passed. If, the Collector after having found that the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) was doubtful, the Collector has every right to order a (De Novo' enquiry by a senior officer. The said direction to conduct a fresh enquiry is not erroneous, illegal or irregular. Submission of the enquiry report does not give any cause of action, as an enquiry report itself is not an order. If, the enquiry report is accepted by the senior officer, then the question of passing of an adverse order would arise. In the case on hand, since no order has been passed and the petitioner is questioning the enquiry repot, no writ can lie against the enquiry report. If it is intended or proposed to pass an order on the basis of enquiry report, the petitioners would have an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order. Thus, this petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons hereinabove, the petition is dismissed on being bereft of merit. No order asto costs. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A.