HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR I DW¥$RON BENCH HON’ELE SHR! mJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUML KUMAR $!NHA, J. -——-——~._~_‘__ Comm : M WRIT APPEAL N0. 242 of 2908 APPELLANI: PETFHONER Santos‘n Gurung, Sio Late Shrf Bhimraj Gurung, Aged about 20 years, resident of Pachpedi Naka, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur, Tahsii and Distt. - Raipur (CG) VERsus ResPoNDENTs 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home PoHce D.K,S. (C.G.) Bhawan Mantraiaya, Raipur 2. Superiniendent of Police, Police Training Schooi, Mana, Raipur (C.G.) CHHATTEGARH WRIT APPEAL HIGH UNDER COURI SECTION (APPgAL - 2 {1! TO OF DIWSEON (THE BENCH! ACT! 2006 [earned counse] for the S:a:e/respondems. Shri Sumesh Ba}aj, {earned - Govt. Advocate for the Present- Shri RK. Kesharwang appeknt. JUDGMENT {14m November, 24x18) The foilowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, c.J.‘: ‘ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Santosh Gurung has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 14.10.2008, passed in W.P.(S) No.5679/2008. 3. Appeliant Santosh Gurung filed the writ petition for the following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to can for the entire records pertaining to the order of suspension dated 23.0?2008 (Annexure P-1) as welt as the charge sheet issued by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 5.9.2008 (Annexure P-5). 10.2 .That this Hon’bie Court may kindiy be pleased to quash the suspension order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) and charge sheet dated 5.9.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no. 2. 10.3 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pieased to issue an appropriate order/direction towards the respondents in regard to the iiiegai recovery issued against the petitioner. 10.4 Any other reiief, which Hontbie Court deems fit and proper of the case, may be aiiowed. 10.5 Cost of the petition may aiso be given. 4. The petitioner, thus tn substance, was seeking quashing of the order dated 23.07.2008 whereby he was piaced under suspension and the charge sheet dated 05.09.2008. 5. The main ground pressed into service in t‘ne writ petition for seeking quashing of‘the order of suspension and charge sheet was that the subiect matter ofrthe petitioner’s prosecution in the criminal case in the Court of the Judiciai Magistrate First Class, at Durg and the departmentat proceedings were the same. 6. Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the appeilant’s pleadings in the writ petition and the documents filed along with the writ petition found that the subject matter of the l l l l petitioner's criminai prosecution and the depattmentai proceedings were not the same. Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeiiant’s writ petition Vide order dated 14‘“ Octob, 2008. er 7. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that atle’ast the subject matter of‘ the first charge in e departmental proceedings and the criminal case is th almost the same. 8. n a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet issued to O the appellant in the departmental proceedings, we gather that the main charge against the appeltant in the departmentai proceedings is abt his unauthorized absence during the ou training period from the training camp and breach of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, whereas the subject matter in the appellant’s'criminal prosecution before the Maistrate is in regard to the snatching of purse of complainant g Neeiam Sabrawaii 9i Thus? we are satisfied that the subject matter of the departmental proceedings and the criminai prosecution against the appellant are .notthe same. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the learned Singie Judge. 10. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is Subbu hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/— Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Jusu’ce Judge Judge