w CgWY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASHIR (C.G.) wan PETHIQN Nof§744~ oy- 2003 BETWEEN mggzg Lgwajm V.N.mrre,r aged about 50 years 8/0 Late Shri H.R.mrre. Vbrking as mpdt. of Mines of Kusmzmda Project, Resident OE c—7, Vikas Nagar, msmunda. District mrba (CG). \ PETITIWER Myf’ AND a? ,‘ Ehe mief General Manager. $uth Eastem malfieldg Limited, msmunda Area. District Ibrba (CG). 'Ihe Director, Technical (Oyeration) s.3.c.L. ailaspur (CG). $1112 Gopal singh, CME( mquiring Authority ) manunda Project , mammda. District mrba (as). $1ri V.R.Bakshi ( Presenting Officer ). , Personnel Ménager, msmmda Project. gnfWik"? §Q§3Y msmunda ,Dis’crict Ibrba (CG). .‘L‘W‘ {Q/ ‘3.“g3 I Clerk to l—\ G. Bikaspul‘ RE5PmDMTs / WRIT PETITIQN__UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONST-ITUTION OE‘ mDlA HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3744 of 2003 Petitioner V. N. Kurre Varsus Respondents The Chief General Manager 6:. others Smt. Renu Kocher, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. f5? ORAL ORDER ( 9th May 2006) ThiS order of the Court was passed by Justice Satish K. Apihotri. 1. The petitioner has nled this petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorali for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.8.2003 (Annexure 13/9) on the ground that the relevant documents have not been supplied to the petitioner. This Court Vide order dated 21.4.2004 has considered the submission of the petitioner and found that the documents shown in the list at uage 28 of the petition has been supplied. Even othelwise the charge sheet cannot be quashed at this stage when the petitioner has failed to prove that if the entire facts, including the charge sheet are taken into consideration, no case is made out for interference by this Court. It is a case where the departmental enquiry is in process. w. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to V L, z the facts and circumstances of the case, when the charge sheet has been issued and the departmental enquiry is pending consideration, it is not necessary to go into the charges levelled against the petitioner at this stage, because it may prejudice the ease of the parties in the pending departmental enquiry 4. For the reasons stated above this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. »V7,A\ _ O[ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri i W " iudge ,,;JV : 1 . 4 "l t Thakur