a?“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Writ Appeai No. 74 03f 2011 AppeHants 1. Staté of MP (Now Chhattisgarh) Respondents throiigh the Secretary, Panchayat and Sociai Weifare Department Valla‘bh Director Bhawan Panchayat Bhopal and MP Seeial Welfare Govt of MP Bhopai MP Commissioner Panchayat and Some! Weifare Govt of Bhopal MP‘ 4. Joint Director Panchayat and SoCIaiWelfare Department Govt of MP Biiaspur MP -Versus— Ramesh Rotkar aged about 58 years son of Shri SR Rotkar Superintendent Blind Deaf and Dumb School Biiaspur MP Respondent Petitioner Present Mr UNS Deo Govt Advocate for the State/appellants ORAL JUDGMENT (14?“ March, 201 1)- Per Dtiirendra Mishra J The appellants/State have preferred this writ appeai against the order of the learned Single Judge (Annexure N1) along With an application (l A ‘ No.1) for condonation of delay as the appeal has been preferred With a delay of‘205 days. 02‘. Heard Shri Devo on LA. No.1 as well as on admission. 03. r Learned Single Judge, after elaborately referring to the entire record oflthe departmental enquiry proceedingsr has arrived at a conclusion that finding of the Enquiry Ofdcer that charges against the delinquent officer stand proved or partially proved, is erroneous as the same is not borne out from the material available on record. The enquiry report reveals that statements of ‘ the witnesses were recorded and the petitioner wasMallowed to cross- _. examine the prosecution vvitnesses, whereas from perusal of the pleadings of _u ,A $0 t e respective partieg It Is evndent that the pecmc ground of the petitioner was that the statements of prosecution Wltn sses were recorded during the course of enquiry m his absence Without affording hlm an oppertumty of cross-exammatlon and the same has not been specxfcalty dented In the Return The learned Smgte Judge has further observed that the records which have been submrtted for perusat of the Court by the respondents do v not reveal as to on which date which prosecution wrtness has been examined It has also not been recorded anywhere that either the petrtroner cross-examrned the prosecution Witnesses or refused to cross-examine them. There rs no record to show that any defence Witness has been examined by the petitioner and yet reference of‘statements of witnesses to prove several charges have been made In the enqurry report Wlth these v observations an Inference has been drawn that certain statements recorded during preliminary enquiry were used by the Enquiry Officer behind the back of the petitioner to hold those charges proved. O4: After hearing Shri UNS Deo o’n admission and after going through the impugned order. we are of the opinion that the appellants have not been able. to‘show any good cause for condoning the delay of 205 days in tiling the instant appeal or for interfering with the impugned order. The appeal is, acoordihgly, dismissed as barred by limitationas well as on merits. Sd/- Sdl- , Dhlrendra Mlshra ’ RANGANATH CHANDRAKAR ‘ Judge Judge