,M..- ^^5^ ov^SS€^ ^^^ss^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5&?'2- / 2011 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA ; AND IN THE MATTER OF CHHATTISGARH CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1966; AND BETWEEN : PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Diwakar Singh Gaur, son of Late Shri Mahendra Singh Gaur, aged about 55 years, presently posted as Stenographer Grade II, Directorate, Veterinary Services, Department ofAnimal Husbandry, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Animal Husbandry (Dairy Services), Mantralaya D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate of Veterinary Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS 311^1 W K-iM 'tTsin'sn^CT sfi*iich WH^II Sbllttt '?ST -^WW<i, yxlly'IS, rsKrtl'My .£.^..M^.^200 311^1 •WK ('yfd'i'!*') SB : IHon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivasta^ai J 13.5.2011 Shri Amrito Das, Shri SushU Dubey, advanced copy. Heard on admission. cou^isel for fhe petitioner. Govt. Advocate for fhe State, on This petition has beei|i enquuy proceedmgs initiat^ 26.11.2009 (Annexure P- l)j initiatfcd ttie Leamed counsel for the conclusion of enquiryj judged the issue, as refle<tted shown in the charge shedf.. subraits that in the preltm|nar crated doubt and stated police, whereas, tn the allegation, the Disciplinarj? petitloner has submitted foi The prelimuiary enqT^iry certain adverse remarks wi petitioner's mark sheet. Th^ inittated departmental en^ ^)T<rf<'ii4t-1 ^iM<rii' ^ fs^l <f^^R ^affilt ail^l filed by fhe petitioner impugntng the by issuance of charge sheet dated petitioner submits fhat even before the Disciplinary Aufhority has pre- from the statement of aUegation Leamed coiuisel for tlie petitlMier ^nary enquiry, the enqi-iiry oflicer only piat the matter requires enquiiy by of chai^es and statements of Aufhority has concluded that the tged mark sheet. at'ttcle report dated 23.6.2009 contamed VfJ ifh regard to fhe geniiiapnity of the Disclplinaiy Authority has fherefore imy. What has been stated in the !ss: t -fl--^ 1 XI-HC—78 31)^1 ^itR-li-* 'W SM^Q st**li<h T^'<ii<iici<i, 8iTi)«'is, fqcii+iy *iiHCT<at*(i<!|»"""""""""""""""""""""""""""^;l^200 ss^y Tra^ ('j^t^s.i) TOiw^iftttsii^n -z- artictes of chai^jes and s ^bWfo^lt ifl*tri1f ^f T^l<fl <fa|t'$l< ^TaiRmsn^r tatement of aUegations is merely an aUegation and cannot be 1|rcated as conclusion because till date the matter has not been ejiquu-ed mto. The appreheasion of the petitioner, on this count, |lierefore, does no appear to be well- founded. The petitioner w allegation m his defence. In view of fhe aforesj issue anv notice to respQ what has been stated in tU uot conclusion. With the aforesald disposed of •ould t)e at liberty to controvert the aid obseryations, I am not tnclined to adeats. However, it is observed that e ctiarge sheet are onty allegation and obser Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge