/&’Ma’_ir§1ég_e*r; ,P;)_ _. E? ,_:m:_,w.:nm , w‘guE ”mi, m3??? H ‘ m N vowigu.weaoc.:om§m:w.o* #ymoamwo: w«a; J #,ww\ # hn T n cnel for t hn C ayant ao couns perSOnS ubmltted to Dur Branch Offce fr lalm papers as per eais gwe ltnessed by yo W u hose llfe ollcles were Issued and w o wer s ied-as er the claim apers, were actuay alve a umsson o cam aer itaébee nd hat fa dth li et Cate "hn fou t ke ea cam cr olicies were arranged by ou ncou’so’n wh'some agen p y il'Ii it ts, a‘n ouse erson Ithas been ounatou oaine p cy hese 25 cases eais m nne py d f dor olic holers or money consieration- nd missed these oriinal p‘on b n‘s‘oriodgin t clis under non earl ea categ ating rau on orpo’ tl erson and delivery o c e‘ favr f onees/claimants In p loi iven In Annexure , or onward rans S K wa ous he S JK R el " s g a C dtl n In a hse "‘ ll te w p a e d p p ll l t~t sbii f li pps. d tid ps Further fdthy bt o ’ t (dtl Ax ‘ ‘ a u g cy d'f fr deah am y dth o purpose of perpetr fd C o " : You received in p h u L'ou o nmi 23 es a g 3 f tm iii) »_ hese cheques w1th the help nd connlvanc d outSIde persons as al the crossed cheques were allowed to persons other than the payee of the ‘cheque m bankrng norms ' ‘Y O ou received from B roceeds of the cheque towards new busmess prop sal ou received from BO Durg chequ' No 49 9 2006 for Rs 56 464 bem ”deat ‘Y 5’ r, 1 h 271014 ibut cheque could not’*beencashed by 8 yo s returned to the offce on dlvulgence of yo fraudu actIVItIes " ‘ ” ' ‘ L V ' :‘t e n se L ' a b‘ ,V’j' vrr I 3 o ’ ‘ i ‘ > p w . 'a le _ , nqurry has already been told to the petltlonerrand t e of Initiating the same Is nothing but an ey heet whlchVhas been Issued‘t the petltloner’iscont‘r‘ary‘t rowsmns of Iaw because the charges Ievelled agamst hlm are very va nd ’ot specrflc He submits that the evelopment Offcer under the Branch M Lager and being a subo fcer he Simply used to attest the claims put forth by any of the clai D rd nd If any misconduct Is alleged to have been done It has been done b anch manager and other persons but not by the petitioner a \ herefor the etitioner has prayed for the followmg reliefs b‘w nstant petition 101 That the Hon ble Court may be pleased to order as to c entire record from the offce of the respondents for peru \ and consrderatlon ‘130‘52 xThat the Hon ble Court may be pleased to Issu writ 'cert|orarl by which quashmg the charge sheet (Annexure P and department enqurry based upon It v’ ‘ 10.3 Any other rellef which this Hon ble Court deems ” ' 'vand Circumstances of the case may also be awar ‘ofthe petltloner ' During the course of argument respondents haVe L nt documents With respect to the enquiry conduct it ner and based on that counsel for the petitioner su etlt ner has been proceeded ex-parte In an nqulry agamst him has been conducted In a hurr te where a protectiv ourt on 29 04 pe mlttlng the enqwry officer had told hlm that Within a I ‘ i from serVIce after completlon of the enquiry x ‘ s'Ion order and the same Is ImpermISSIbIe He submits that result o H ' e he ‘ s e’ “s o p gu a p " f m T I} a y ”r d te; p ay I al sa 5 ft de 'a a ed * t b _ rel p I ‘ :e l hat the petitioner Is fortuna e C 2008 r , f ', ....... ) eplylng to the arguments of the counsel for the petmo argued by the counsel for the res ondents that charge s A s velled agamst the petltloner categoncally defnmg the a nsel submrts that Iakhs of rupe ve been wrthd e d h o ge . s rly ent ’nrng as to In which Insurance policy th” petltroner has forwarde nnexure P-5) Is very clear and as many asl6 specrfc har 'e e c u e V, a ra ' r show g the lIve persons as dea and his act t f'the gra 'ty of the offence He submits that along wrthithe char hee ‘three annexures were also supplied to the petitioner clea r ‘e t th tt w artrcrpate In the enqurry, to see all the documents and then to c xamine the Witnesses In his defence In respect of Issuance o Char lng the same only after re ion No 68/2008 It has be hat Issuance of charge sheet has nothing to do With the etltloner filed In the High Court nor the same has been Issued by putti he back date He submits that no threat whatsoever has bee‘ i e EnqUIry Officer as alleged by the petitioner In paragraph 8 '0 etition He submits that the petitioner never made any dem ’speCIfc document and had any such speCIfIc demand been m espondents would have conSIdered the same and supplle ocuments to him or at least permrtted him to In ”ect the sa fce In respect of departmental enqUIry proceeding‘ It has been argu at subject matter of the present writ petition Is only the charge sheet a d has not sought any relief In that respect he Is 'n e h t e enqUIry proceedings suffICIent opportunity has been grante to w, . . n i " hee '11‘ m dt venilrn the documents which are reu ed to be pro ‘d ' spondents durlng rnqUIry He submits tha e peiioner ir q y p ro e ge u ce ' In writ petit en *t p Vr'lp ng ~ ,t t gve ” h of p a V , ”‘f ad f'r d Id m’ f ed h n V _I Ion'ihéfsj no’fé’réé an ‘‘l:_ ... ‘ . A, r, mi‘s‘sedasréuch;y .3 ..