^^ .1.^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR "s ,A- WRTT PETTTION 'WNO. ^^J.OF 2011 PETITIONER -^••••'" ./• ^^•;<"..--"".../ J^^rriy .^~ •^".;y^y < .••"'<'*>••' ,^''.^":....-" ^^" ..•••' :s?" ^ <sl ^' RESi*C»NDE;N']E'S^ ^-2, Ram Pukar Singh, S/o Late Shri Chandra Deep Singh, Aged abouf 44 years, R/o 24/10 Dudt Cplony Post of&ce Nehru Nagar, Durg Chhattisgarh. l \ •• •' • • • . ' . • VERSUS SSs^^Set^M^.n:d^,'nsaugh- Regianal Man^ger, Regional Business ofiiee area-3 Bhflai, Dyrg Clihatisgarh. Disciplinary Authoi-ity eum Assistant Managing Director (AdministratiQR), Slate Bank of India, Administrative QSSice, Baren Bazar, REOpur, Chhattisgarh. SurendraBy, Officer State Bank of India, BrancB^^ K^ Ghhattisgarlt. , ; "' ili:M 7J WRITPETn*IONUNl)ERAR'nCLE2260FTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA. 's 1 ^; HIGH GOURTOFCHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SV N0.1960 OF 2011 PETITIONER Ram PukarSingh Versus RESPONDENTS State Bank of India & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDERrORAU (Passedonthis 11"1day6fApril, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the memo of charges dated 17-2-2011 (Annexure—P/5) issued against the petitiofieron the basis of certain allegations, whereunder 7 days time was grahted to the petitioner to file response. Aocdrding to the petitioner, the charge sheet was issued on 28-3-2011 .without tlecuments. 2. Thereafter, the petitiorier t-ias not filea Sny fesponse and apprbached this Court toquash the charges pn the ground thatthe charges are vague and also not supported by the documents on whichitisproposedtoholdtheenquiryofficer. 3. Learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy . 4. On perusalofthedocuments.itappearsthattheallegationthatthe charges are vague, primafacie,is not found correct. Atthis stage, 1 do hot propose to go into detailed enquiry and make any observation in respect of the nature of allegations, as the same may prejudice the enquiry initiated against the petitioner. _5. So far as non-supply of documents is conGemed, the petitioner may make appropriate representation to the disciplinary authority/ enquiry officer for supply of necessary documents, if so advised. 1 (1995)13cc 332 \^/''. The allegations are not final, which are subject matter of enquiry, thus atthisjuncture.itisnotjustahdexpedienttointerferewith. Reliance of the petitionerin the matter of TransportCommissioner (supra) is not relevant to the facts of the case, as in that case after issue of charge sheet dated 4-6-1989 theenquirycould not be completed till 1992 andin that context the Supreme Court while observing that in normal course the disciplinary authority or the authority which framed the charges, would be directed to partieularise the charges and then to proceed with the enquiry. However, in the facts of the ease, the Supreme Courtlooked into the nature ofthe report and came tothe conclusion. In the instant case, the memo of charges was issuedon 17-2-2011 andthe deficiency & irregularity.if any, in the memO of Gharges may be poihted out by tfte petitioner during eriquitiy or.'thereafter, ifso advised. :" ''' :: : • :."'.: ' :::: .•...:'1:..' •: :.; . •• Resultantly, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion staaeitself._ Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihofn Judge