HIGHCOURT OF CHHATT!SGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2855 of 2007 Udai Pal Singh Bhadauria, aged about 5? years son of Late Brijnayak Singh‘ Bhadauna Asstt Sub lnspecton P.S. aioda Bazar, Distt Ralpur (C.G. VERSUS B ) State of Chhattusgarh through' — th Secretary, Department of Home Affairs Dau Kalyan Smgh Bhawan Ralpur (Chhattisgarh) Supenntendent of Ponce-Cum Offcer District Mahasamund (C G) Shn Dlpanshu Kabra Superintehdent of Police. Mahasamund (Presently S P Raigarh) The Ctty Superintendent of Pohce. Distt Mahasamund (CG) “Prem Kant Awasthy, Former Station Hous Offcer PS Mahasamund (CG) atpresen posted as RI Police Lme Mahasamund (C.G.) . Dau Ram Sagar, Head Constable P.S. Mahasamund, Distt; Mahasamund (C.G.) Krishna-Kumar Venna', Head Co‘nstable PS Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund’ (0G) Shiv Charan Netam Constable PS Mahasamund Dlstnct Mahasamund (C G) Chhedl Lal Tlwan Head Constable PS Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION , OF lNDlA earance Shn Anll Tnpathl counsel for the petitioner Shri Sumit Verma Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents No 1 2 & 4 Shri Awadh Tripathr counsel for respondent No 3 None for respondents No 5 6 7 & 8 though notices are reported t be served None for respondentNo. 9. RESPONDENTS Inquiry Former Distt 8 e e t 9 PETITIONER . App , ‘ r o W 2 W.P.§S! No. 2855 of 2007 ORAL ORDER (12.10.2007) UNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. This petition Was filed for quashing of the charge-sheet (Annexure- P15) as well as departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel’for the petitioner contended that the chalienge was made mainly 'on the ground that the enquiryitseif vitiated as there is Violation of Rule 18 of MP. (C.G.) Civil Services (Classification, Control ' and Appeal) Rules, 1966. ' Written Submission on behalf of respondents No. 1,2 & 4 has been tiled along with order dated 29.8.2607 as Annexute-R/T. According to which, referring to Rule 18, the entire enquiry has been remanded on the ground, that no prior permission was taken by the competent authority nder Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules. After going through the contents of reply (Annexure—R/1), when the matter has been remanded, i do‘not deem it proper tointerfere in this writ petition at this stage because the point raised by the petitioner has been redressed by respondent and necessary ordershave been passed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. However, he petitioner shail' be at lib'erty, to tile subsequent petition if such an t exigency arises in future.» ln that situation, he shall be entitled to take all othergroundsapart from ground of Rule 18 in the subsequent petition. v Sdl— Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge. r vatti S u "