G^ l;3rz>^~ ^ .'ejs', cW-fW^r '• ^c IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTSGARH1 WRIT PETITION (S) N0; Of 2010 PETITIONER Praveen Sharina, Age 49 years S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Occupation- Deputy Business Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited R/o B-301, Maruti Hights, G.E.Road District- Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^o ..• ^^ ^'..•4-A'PWt >''' ^yy^ \'- ,.-cfy' ^•" ^ 1. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Liinited Through its Managing Director, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 2. General Manager, (Adininisfa-ation) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies CorporationJ-imited, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 3. M.N.Prasad Rao, (Enquiry Officer) General Manager (Transportation) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^-S':"C!V^ /:.'-'"' .^"'"'^s ^ i1 1iS&£« 'sa ^- f1'^^' .t fi}\^k0 i"!s' ^Q^ gy~" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1489 OF 2010 PETITIONER Praveen Sharma RESPONDENTS Versus Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Others (Writ petition underArticte 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri J.N. Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 7th day ofApril, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the show cause notice dated 28.01.2008, which was signed on 28.1.2010 whereby the removal of the petitioner from service has been proposed on agreeing with the enquiry report. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a discrepancy in the enquiry, as disciplinary authority himself has acted as enquiry officer. Secondly, the issue has been concluded earlier and the second time no charge-sheet can be issued on the same ground. Thirdly, show cause notice amounts to final order of termination. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 4. It is well settled principle of law that enquiry officer conducts enquiry on behalf of the disciplinary authority, if the disciplinary authority himself has conducted enquiry, there is no discrepancy or illegality or error. Secondly, with regard to the fact that the enquiry has been concluded earlier on the same charges, the ^F4 "^"^ ••^KS.S^ 6. petitioner has not produced any documents except reference made in the impugned notice. The Supreme Court in IVIanaging Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others , observed that "s/nce the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry, which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority fthe enquiry ofTicer being only his delegate appointed to hold the inquiry and to ass/sf him), the employee's reply to the enquiry offi'cer's report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute an integral part of such inquiry". At this stage, if there is any discrepancy it cannot be looked into, as the matter is at the stage of second show cause notice whereby, the punishment has been proposed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the formal order of punishment, the petitioner may approach this Court, but presently this is premature and the same deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 1 Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (1993)4SCC727