/ § ‘ WRIT PETImJw HQ L5r2ezoo4 ‘ PETITIC’N Q §\ “1% \) {\ym Aga‘i Chandra about Klihara {+5‘s’ears 5/0 _x “13$!3‘E Sdlmg Mssth (Jerk W“ Gauss Memami Church Rm BeEmd L 531M Paf Chmch Mtssson Fcmpcmnd Ralpuh g G c. _ . VER§Lx5 3: ' V, ~; ' ‘ ‘RESPQNDENYS “ 1} piradawau‘gMemanalrkmh 7 ‘ t _ ‘ , L ‘ )3lS%ambhi hawkllalpdr i ‘ ~ / ‘ 2} Thin Appenafe ”\ukhaH‘l‘y C (3 ; r J‘mg ané Eiabhshmanf Ad1%5 AsslsEan'E Iii-«Dar Kammissmner Ratpu E I i i 3 M r. ( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No 1426 of2004 { i ‘ ‘ ; l 1 \V _ g $ RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘ SB: Honmle Sim SatishK. Agnihbi. , ' ‘ ' , g3 é ‘ I , > V i i w Shn S C Verma, Advocate for the petmoner RDERgonAL) (Passed on 10 day of September 2009) Heard learned counsel for the petmoner The pettnoner unpugls the order dated 8‘“ December, 2003 (Annexure P/l) V 3': ’ t _ ' V passed by the appellate authonty, C G Shops and Estabhshment Act 1958- 1 2 ’ E l , cum-Ass1stant Commlssmner, Labour, Ralpur, 1n case No 4/Shop/Appeal ‘ : 2000 agamst the termmatxon order dated 9‘“ November 2002 The challenge to the nnpugned order 1s that smce the petmoner has admltted Ins V, V g faults the petltloner ought to have been consrdered sympathetrcally, but no ‘ opportunlty of heanng was aEorded to the pet1tmner before the Enqmry I Ohicer The enquuy report could not be prov1ded to the petmoner and the personal hearmg as sought for m the departmental enqun'y was also not grven to the petrtloner. . > e ' p ' 2. The petitioner has not med any document to indicate any error as aforestated 1n the enqulry or thereaiter The matter came up for hearmg on r y 28m June 2004 Thereaiter the case was listed on 13‘ July, 2004 and the I ase was adjourned Agam, on 17m September, 2008 the matter w c as i ~,W OF Y INDIA \ ag ‘ n T O f i PETITIONEk :, Chandra Kishore.- 1 < ' _ VERSUS a RESPONDENTS : Dnector Gauss Memonal Church & another ‘ ., v @oc1xfments to establish the allegations made ‘ thé petition. No documents 1:}avef been filed except the impugned order dated 8““ December, 2003. For ivant of relevant documents, it is not possibl! to examine the allegations tnade by the petitioner and to hold that the impugied order is irregular, improper or bad in law. Ellie! appellate authority in its order dated 8m l)gecember, 2003 atter having émnsidered all the aspects of the matter, held that the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner was proper. The petitioner was aiforded full opportunity. The petitioner and other witnesses were examined. It was held l Y I z i K v q l x 1 x i by tihe appellate authority that the petitioner/appellant in his examination has admitted that he was afforded opportunity to present his case and dduce evidences. He was further a§orded opportunity to cross examine the iwitnesses of the management also and as: such, the enquiry was in :accéirdance with law. Alter having considered ‘othel facts ofthe case, it was held that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct and as such, order of termination was just and proper. On;perusal of the impugied order, I do not find any infirmity, irregularity and as such, nointerference is warranted. Forthe reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. \ i Sdl- i t \ Sau'sh Kr- wow; L Judge