d^ ST(7 IN THEHIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (St No. ^325^ /2009 ....«• .-£^ ^'^ RESPONDENTS 1) PETITIONER :: G.R. Ansari, aged about 47 years, S/o. Shri Abdul Rahman Ansari, r" Assistant Grade-II, Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, Tahsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS " State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). Deputy Director Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, Disfa-ict Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) CoIIector Surguja Ambikapur Districf Surguja (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF 2) 3) 4) APPROPRIATE WMT/WRITS. ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION/DIRBCTIQNS etc. COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPOR PETITIONER WRIT.PETjTION (S) N0, OF 2009 G.R. Ansari Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ^Writ Petition under Artlde 22S ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench :.Hon?bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- •:5V1s Haniida Siddiqyj, co-ynsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfORAL'i (Passed on thls 3rci day of December, 2009) 1. . Wlth the consent of learned coyrisel appearlng for the partles, the petition Is heard flnaiiy. 2. By thas petition, the petitloner seeks to quash the order dated 18-3-2069 (Annexure - P^1) whereby the Collector, Sarguja, holdlng that the Generai Adminjstratlon Committee of Janpad Panchayat has no power, dlrected lodging of First Inforniatlon Report. (for short stFIRft} against the petitioner under the provislons of Section 420 of the Indlan Penal Code. 3. The indisputable facts, sn nutshell, as projected by the petitiorser, are the petitjoiier was working as Assistant Grade - III at Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, wherein an ailegation was made against the petitioner to the effect thaf he had tampered wlth the documents and made false entrles • regardsng reservation of wards. The petitioner was suspended, enquiry was heSd and punishment order withhoiding three Increments with non-Gumulative effectwas passed on S-12-2000 (Annexure - P/2) by the Co!lector, Sarguja. The petitloner made a representatlon 20-9-2001- to. the Chief Execytive Officer, ^ 8. Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, for reiease of increiiients, which is stiil pending consideration before the respondent- authorities. In the meantime, a compialnt was made by Shri R-B. Jaiswal, retired employee of Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnaaar that the, petltioner has forged the jncrement siips commltted-a criminai offence.- On receipt of compiairit the Depyty DJrector placed She petltioner ynder syspension appointed one Shri B.S. ' Tiwari, In-charge Asslstant Director, Directorate o.f Panchayat and Soclal Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipyr,. to condyct an enqyiry against the petitioner on the alSeged corpptalnt by order dated 30-5-2008 (Annexure - PIS). Enquirywas conciuded and repo'rt was submitted o.n 23-6-2008 (An'nexyre - PIG] -hoidiog that the ailegatlon wlth regard to forglng of payiiient sllp of incrennents was foynd proved. On the basls of the said report, the Coliector, by order dated 18-3-2009 dlretted tolodge a FIR against the petitioner, Thus, this petition» 1 have heard leamed coynse! appearing for the partles, perysed the pieadings and the documents thereto. It is evldent the petltjoner qyashment of FIR on the groyod that the enqyiry report is bad m !aw, as the reievant officers riamejy: Shri Nansay and Shri R.D, Paleshwar as as Accouotarat namely; Shri P« Sharma were not the enqyiry was condyded humedlv. In the petitlon, the petitioner has not chailenged the enquiry report. The sole prayer in thls petition is to quash the order dated 18-3-2009. not even FIR. The order has been .,.^ Gowri passed on the basis of enqyiry report wherein serioys of forglng of docyments has found proved. In the present petition, for want of chaiienge of enqyiry report the itTipygned order oo enqyiry report cannot be assalied, Thls petltion to qyash the order 18-3-2009 (An'oexyre Prt) cannot be consjdered, at stege, as the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the initial order of Imposltioii of pynishment of withholdlng three incretTients withoyt cymylatlve effect and also enqyiry reporfc Thvs, thls petitioii is not in the eye of law. Accordingiy, the writ is disnnissed at the iTisotiori stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge