HT IGH’COUR OF CHATGA HTISRH AT BILASPUR ‘ HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA &' HON’BLE SHRI R.N.‘ CHANDRAKAR, JJ W Appellant Petitione rit Appeal No. 14 of 201 0 Anil Kumar Snvastava aged about 45 years S/o (Shn Bansh Narayan Lal Foreman lncharge (Electrical & Mechamcql) Shlwam Mines — SECL Resident of 3/122 Jarahl Colony PO Bhatgaon Comery, District Surguja (CG) Union of Ina, Throuh Ministry of Coal, 31/A- Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -1. Sub Area Manager Kalyanl Sub Area SECL Bhatgaon Area PO Bhatgaon Colliery. District —- Surguja(CG) Area Personnel Manager. (Office of te General Manager) SECL, Bhatgaon‘ Area, PO. Bhatgaon Colliery, District Surguja (CG Colliery Manager Swani Mines PO Bhatgaon Area SECL PO Bhatgaon Colliery, District Surguja (CG) Chief General Manager, Bhatgaon Area,' SECL, PO. Bhatgaori Colliery, District Surguja (CG) Chief General Manager, Respondents (Head Quarer) Sipat Road, Bilaspur, SECL. r Present? ShrilAshok Verma counsel for the appellant Shri Raghvendra Pradhan counsel for the UOI/respondent No 1 Shri Vinod Deshmukh counsel for respondents No 2 to 6 RAL JUDGMENT ' (17m March, 2010) ' er Dhirpndra Miahra l The petitioner filed Writ Petition(s) No 7443/09 and prayed for quashing of order of suspenSion and charge sheet dated 17 8 2009 (Annexure P/1) as y well as his transfer order dated 21 8 2009 (Annexure Pl2) passed by Sub Area Manager/respondent No.2 and the Chief General Manager/respondent No.5, respectively, on the ground that-the same have been issued on aCCount of malafide exerCise of powers as the petitioner had been a Witness to some illegal actIVitiés committed by the superior offcers D.B. r di g h ) hi t O P 9\ V Shn Ashok Verma teamed counsel for the appellant submlts that the appellant/petitioner had impugned the order of suspenslon and the charge: sheet as well as his malafde transfer order dated 21 .82009 m the wnt petrtlon, but the learned Single Judge dld not consider the material relating to malaflde transfer. and dismissed the petition only on thei ground that the charge sheet" has been issued and the petitioner has been pl!aced under suspension on the" allegation of insubordination and misconduct and he has an opportunity to rebut the charges during enquiry proceedings Shn Vinod Deshmukh learned counsel for respondents No 2 to 6/SECL submits that the appellant was suspended from serVices for misconduct of serious nature which badly affected the production of coal causmg financial loss to the respondents. The appellant's explanation against suspenSion-cum- charge memorandum was not found satisfactory by respondent No.2 vide order dated :21/22.8.2009 (Annexure P/13) and he was permitted to join his duties pending departmental enquiry. The appellant gavehis joining at his transferred place on 29.12.2009 vide Annexure A/2. His application was put before the Chief General Manager, Jamuna Kotma Colliery, who did not agree with the remark put by the Staff Ofhcer that there is no requirement of Foreman In- charge in the area. He further submits that if the appellant reports to the Chief General Manager, he would be allowed to join duties. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ‘It is not in dispute that the competent authority placed the petitioner under‘suspension and issued charge sheet for the alleged misconductiof lnsubordinatioh. He was subsequently transferred by the Chief Generai Manager to Jamuna Kota Colliery vide Annexure Pl2. The petitioner challenged the issuance of charge sheet and order of suspension as well as his transfer to Jamuna Kotma Colliery on the ground that the orders have been issued in the malatide exercise of powers as the petitioner was a witness to some alleged misconduct committed by the officers of SECL. The petition has been dismissed with an observation that the charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension on the allegation of insubordination & misconduct the charges are not ipso facto proved unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner to rebut the charges and therefore the charge sheet regarding serious allegations cannot be quashed at this stage as the same is required to be proved in the dismplmary enquiry. w We are unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner’s challenge to his transfer order of Annexure P12 has not been considered in. the impugned order. The petitioner has also challnd s trner rder. on the similar gund at he has ben malafidel'i ege hi asf o ro th e y trahsferred by the respondents as he wa§ a Jutness to certain musconduct ;, commxtted by the respondent ofFcers The appenant/petmoner shall have an‘ opportumty m the enquiry proceedmgs not onlyjto rebut the charges leveled against him, but also to demonstrate that the same was issued on the ground of malafdes of the reSpondent authorities towards thie appellant/petitioner On the basrs of aforesard discussions we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that writ petition for quashing the order of suspension and issuance of charge sheet cannot be entertained when departmental enqwry is pending against the appellant We are also of the opinion that transfer of the appellant after suspensmn to Jamuna Kotma Colliery on the ground of malafdes cannot be entertained We find no substance in this ‘writ appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ redra sra udge L ; - - Dhln Mxh 7 J