"".f mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4090 of2003 _a PETITIONER Janak Ram Kori VERSUS RESPONDENTS Shri D.R. Deshmukh & Others. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment and order on 3.Y /02/2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge !s- K^SKi^sS^ V mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4090 of 2003 ^s^ i^^-^s, PETITIONER : Janak Ram Kori, S/o Ramadhin Kori (SC) aged about 58 years, R/o village Sakri, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Shri D.R. Deshmukh, Aged about 57 years, Former District Judge, Bilaspur, Presently posted as Legal Adviser to Govemor of Chhattisgarh, Raj Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhay Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar General. 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary (Law) DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 4. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur fhrough Registrar General. 5. District Judge, Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri M.K. Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 3. (Passed on this i>7' ' day ofFebruary,2009) 1. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing on 21,04.2004. On the request of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, fhe matter was adjoumed for two weeks. Thereafter, the matter was again listed oti 11.02.2009, the same request was made and the matter was again adjourned to next week. On 18.02.2009, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to argue the matter, however, he requested for two days time to file written argument. Written argument was filed on 25.02.2009. 2. The petitioner impugns the order of compulsory retirement dated 30.09.98, passed by the respondent No. 1. Further, he prays to initiate departmental ^ ^i.SS'-^ g *;, *&T-^./ >--^^ esqwry against the respondent No. 1 for having committed serious illegality/irregularity in the matters ofappointment/promotion during his teniu-e. 3. The brieffacts, as stated in the petition is that, the first respondent was posted as District Judge, Bilaspur, during the period ftom April, 1997 to mid of 2001. The respondent No. 1 had malice and ill will against the members belonging to ST/SC and minority communities. The petitioner was clerk and posted as Court Reader in the Disto-ict Court, Bilaspur till 30.09.98 when he was compulsory retired by the respondent No. 1. Prior to that, the petitioner was suspended on 17.10.97. During suspension, one Shri Ravi Kumar Soni was appointed as temporary on the post of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 17.11.97 (Annexure P/l). A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the charges ofmisplacement ofcertain documents in regard to criminal case No. 269/95 and criminal case No. 118/95. In the departmental enquiry, full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the petitioner participated. On the basis of enquiry report, the respondent No. 1, being disciplmary authority, issued second show cause notice to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. The respondent No. 1, after having considered reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, it was ordered to retire the petitioner compulsorily by the impugned order dated 30.09.98. The then District Judge, Bilaspur, is at present Hon'ble Judge ofthe High Court ofChhattisgarh. 4. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The same was also rejected by order dated 21.09.1999 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner has made other allegations with regard to appointment of Smt. Gita Soni, regularization ofRavi Kumar Soni, removal ofR.K. Swamakar, A.G. III, Lochan Prasad Maravi, Shri Arvind Mishra and Shri G.K. Meshram without impleading them as party respondents. Thus, the petitioner seeks quashing ofthe impugned order dated 30.09.98. ^ i(... .d^^¥' '5. I have pemsed the written arguments, pleadings and documents appended thereto. There is no challenge to the order dated 21.09.99, passed by the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in appeal. The allegations ofviolation of provisions of C.G. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, is not supported by any document. Self-same statement cannot be held as established by the petitioner, without advancing proper arguments supported by documents. The petitioher has declined to address the court. 6. Shri Lochan Prasad Maravi (ST) has also filed two writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 884 of 2004 and 6531/2006 which were dismissed on 24.09.2008 and 25.07.2007 respectively. The petitioner has not challenged the original order which was affirmed by the High Court, in appeal, on the groimd that there is any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the departmental enquiry. Even otherwise, enquiry report was submitted. Proper opportunity ofhearing was afforded to the petitioner and punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed after consideration ofhis reply to the second show cause notice. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the order of compulsory retirement which was passed after holding proper enquiry, having afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, there is no irregularity or illegality in the departmental enquiry. Further, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the appellate order which has affirmed the order ofcompulsory retirement ofthe petitioner, passed by the fhen, District Judge, Bilaspur. With regard to appointment of other persons and removal from service, the petitioner cannot be pennitted to challenge the same in this petition. Even otherwise, the persons/employees concemed are not impleaded as party respondents in the present petition. The question with regard to appointment/promotion of some employees and removal from service cannot be agitated upon and examiaed in this petition in their absence. 8. It is also not a case ofthe petitioner that the departmental enquiry is defective or he has not been afforded opportunity of hearing either in the departmental enquiry or fhereafter. Thus, it is well settled principle of law that High Court should be loathe in interfering with the findings of the departmental enquiry and punishment thereon particularly in a case where there is no challenge regarding irregularity or illegality in the departmental enquiry or violation of principles of natural justice. (See P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank oflndia and Others ). So far as other prayers with regard to holding enquiry etc. are concemed, the same are ftivolous. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his self-same statements or allegations on the basis of any documents or facts. Thus, the relief in respect ofholding enquiry is noticed to be rejected on the above stated grounds. 9. Lookiog from all angles, the orders passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, and Disciplinary Officer, Bilaspur, are unexceptionable and do not warrant interference. 10.In view ofthe foregoing, the petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Sat^. Judge ' 2006 (8) SCC 776