iniii IN HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS) N0;'7o^5' /2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: 1 INw^ Rajesh Das,S/o Late Hari Das, aged about 47 years, Constable 'No.158, Police Line Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretaiy Departnient 6f Home (Police) Affgdrs, D.K.S; Bhawan Raipur Inspector General of Police, Biiaspur Range, Bilaspur Sup'erinterident of Ppliee Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir- t;hampa(C.G.) S. R. Bfaagat, presently posted as Additional Superintendent of Poliee, Sakti, Disfrict-Jaahjgir Champa (C.G.) WRITPEnTIQNI.JNE)ERARTICLE2260FTHE ^'^^^••^ '• -«^' ..••"" '^--^'' 4. CONSTI'TUTION OF' INE)IA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG ATBILASPUR - WRTTPETmON (S) No. 7085 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS RajeshDas. VERSUS StateofChhattisgarh & Others. <<. WRTT PETmQNUNDER ARTICLE 226 OETHEeONSTrTUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'blfr ShiiSattsh K. AenJhotri, J. Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, PanelLawyerforthe State/respondents 1 to3. ORDERfORAU CPassed on 03rd day of December, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of fhe departmental proceedings initiated by the respondent-authorities on the gyound fhat the petitioner has not been supplied the documents wtiich he had sought for, and'secondly, fhe petitioner is being harassed by the respondents by holding the enquiry at Baloda, while the proceedings are going on at Janjgir- Champa. 2. At fhis stage, wKen the enquiry is ah-eady going on, fhis Court exercisini jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, may not interfere with the disciplinary eaquiry. So far assupplv ofdocuments as sottght for by tlis petitionei- isconeemed, it is fbrthie enquiry officerto dscide whether fhe documents sought for are retevant or noi.Iftfae neeessary doeuments are not supplied, that will take its own consequenees. With re^rd to ttie other ground that the petitioner has been asked fo appeM- at Baloda while the proceedings is going on at Janjgir,Champa, the petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application either before the discipimary autfaority or the enquiry officer for appropriate relief. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that this Court should refi-ain itself from interfering with the disciplinary proceedin^ on the above stated grounds. 4. Consequently, the writpetition is dismissed. Aimt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge