‘WW §£EuH§MI£§ILQEQ§E£E-Efl¥§}.T..T..I§GARE *E...B}.£§§§§' ....... / wRIT mTITgoN No. “(37$ OF 2005 um. Nuuuuuu..uuawn—ug»un~-n u“... mu.-.man Smt. Sarita Dewangan, Wife of ¢ Sri Munna Lal Dewangan, aged about 29 years, working as a Upper Division Clerk, Block Educatlon ofilce, Bahmnialh, P S. Saragaon, Elstrlct : Jangqlr _ Champa ( C G. ). yETITIONER .ar-m. u—muu- VERSU§ n §i§§$i9§£§§£§ 1° State of €hhattlsgarh / through the seed-catary, Eaucation Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. ( C.G. ) 2‘> The Collector, Janjgir - /\ y’ Champa ( C.G. ) g. The District Education Officer, Janjgir - Champa ( C.G: ) K.9. Rathore, Block Educatio ofEicer, Bahmnidih, Dist : Janjgir o Champa ( CgG. ) Vijay Kumar Khurre, $eon, Block Education O£fice} Bahmnidih, Distric t : Janjgir - Chompa ( C;G‘ ) K P. Dewangan, Lower D1v151ori Clerk, Block Education Office, Bahmnldlh, D1st+ Janjgir — Champa ( C,G ) u WRIT QEWITION UND K ARTICLES 22§/227‘Or THE CONQTITUTION OF INDIA. n t . !a v“ ~ No refurn has been filed cn behalf of respondem‘ No.4. Learned counsel for resp den‘r No.4 submifs Tha‘r he is adopfing The refurn filed on behalf of ‘l'he 5f e/responden‘l‘s No.1 ‘l'o 3. Rejoinder has also been fl ed on behalf of ‘lhe pe‘l’i‘rioner. Heard. The peTi‘Honer has prefe red This wriT pefifion under Ar'ricle 226/ 227 of The Consfifu‘rion of Indi , wifh a prayer for direcfing respondenfs' No.1 To 3 fo fake appropriafe ac ion in fhe mah‘er again‘g‘l' responden‘l‘s No.4 To 6 and 1'0 furfher direcf responden‘fs No.1 fo 3 To decide fhe represen‘l'afion. The case of fhe pefifion r is Tha‘l' she is working as Upper Division Clerk in The Office of respo denT No.4 i.e. Block EducaTion Officer, respondenT No.5 is working as P on in The said Office, and respondenT No.6 is working as Lower Division Cl rk in The said Office. Allega‘l‘ions of The peTiTioner againsT respondenTs 0.5 <5: 6 are ThaT They are compelling The / XI-Hc-22 33W, m,W mm Wm‘(JQ‘Plg7 2005 135 m mam mm WW Wmatw mmn'wm %a:%uan%$i 3-$-2005 Mr. V.K. Pandey, counsel for The pe‘i‘i‘l’ioner. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advoca‘re for fhe Sfafe/respondenm No.1 “to 3. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, counsel for responden‘r No.4. V Mr. Pmfull Bhurm', counsel for respondenfs No.5 & 6. Refurn has ’a!ready been filed on behalf of responden‘rs No1 f0 3, 5 and 6. XI—HC—22 W ..._ EW,W,W 3mm mm.w.$.l.2gg/E 2005 136 mama mm mmEwW $Wané§1 -2» pe‘rifioner To esfabiish physical re did nof agree, then They senf nal: one day, fhey placed fhe said phc im'ions wifh Them and when The‘ peiifioner' .ed phofogmphs 1'0 her house by pos'r and iographs on The pefi‘i'ioner's Office fabie. Feeiing aggrieved, 1'he pe‘i'ii‘ioner iLodged a reporf af Police Sfa'i'ion: Saragaon Respondent No.4 is harassing fh‘e he is going To ‘iake coercive aciior Refurn has been filed on l: in which if has been menTioned correc‘i fac‘is, she is Trying To m The pe‘rifioner has been suspende shee‘l‘ has also been issued by complain? before The Police auTl afTer inve‘sTigaTion, The Police c respondenTs No.5 & 6. The pe before The Block Education Offic on 2-3-2004, she has made a receiving The complainTs, The Dis 28—7-2004 appoinTed an Enquiry School, Choriya, Tehsil: Champa, 6/2005 under Secfion 509 of The I.P.C. and on This complaint Crime No. n/ is being faken agains‘l' respondems No.5 has been regisi'ered, bu‘l' no acfi & 6, and 'l’he higher authori‘rie's re no‘r considering The grievance of ihe pe‘i'i‘rioner. The pe‘i'i‘l'ioner fil d explanafion, before respondenl' No.4. peTiTioner, because of personal enmiTy and againsT The peTiTioner. ehalf of The STaTe/respondenTs No.1 To 3 ThaT The peTiTioner has noT come wiTh slead The CourT and concealing The facTs‘ ‘d vide order daTed 26-5-2005 and charge The auThoriTy. The peTiTioner made a IoriTy agains‘l' respondenTs No.5 & 6, and .uThoriTy has filed charge sheeT againsl' TiTioner made a complainT on 207-2004 er againsT respondenTs No.5 & 6, and again complainT againsT respondenT No.6. On TricT EducaTion Officer vide order daTed Officer, Principal, GOVT. Higher Secondary .and enquiry has been insTiTuTed againsT XI-HC-22 mm WW mqEa'a responden‘rs No.5 & 6. In fhe. mean fime, fhe pe‘rifioner wi‘rhdrew her complain‘rs againsf respondem‘s No.5 & 6. Re1'um has also been filed on behalf of respondenfs No.5 & 6 in which They have memioned fhm' a faise case has been regisfer'ed againsf fhem and They are being harassed. I have peru'sed The record. In This maTfer, enquiry as conducTed by The Principal, GovT. Girls Higher Secondary School, Akal ara, DisTricT: Janjgir-Champa, in which he has submiTTed a reporT on 9-4 05 and menTioned ThaT on enquiry from all The employees iT was found ThaT The peTiTioner herein Mrs. SariTa Dewangan Took away The order regisTer f m Mr. KP. RaThore 'on 19-1-2005 and even afTer repeaTed reques'l‘s The s id regisTer was noT reTurned by her, on which vide leTTer daTed 24-1-2 05 The peTiTioner was asked To send her explanaTion. On 1—2-2005, The peTiTioner wenT along wiTh her husband To The PosT Office and her husb ‘wiThouT giving acknowledgemenT Took The speed posT leTTer from The PosT Office forcefully. A complainT of The same was made by The DepuTy P 5T MasTer To Saragaon Police STaTion. OpporTuniTy was also given To T e peTiTioner Togexplain her posiTion and puT forward her case. The Principal has concluded ThaT The peTiTioner herein is in habiT of noT complying wiTh o ders and direcTions of The senior officers, she is always indifferenT Towar s The GovernmenT orders, she is in habiT of flouTing GovernmenT orders, Ta ing GovernmenT record forcefully, creaTing obsTrucTion in The adminisTraT ve work, coming wiTh her husband in The - 0 a XI—HC—22 3am, mg,W 3am, 1 3 é; m Wm;€é.a?;&87.6 200 3 . . . .m mm mm mm ' mmmm 5 4L ‘ WW%WW %31%H311%¥T Office on accoun‘r of which There is every chance Thuf any empioyge can be involved in connecfion wi‘th levelling false allega‘rions againsl' any employee and fhe has menfioned Tha‘r The afmosphere regarding charac‘l'er' Principal of ‘rhe Office is fense. also concluded The Collec‘l'or one Enquiry was go‘l' by from one Depufy Collec‘l’or & Disfrici' Women Chilc Development Officer Sm‘l‘. Anifa Agrawal in which if has been cafegoricallv men'lioned fhai' 1'he pe‘I'iTioner’s affi'l'ude was no? co-opera‘rive , in conduc‘l'ing The enquiry and on accoun‘r of The complainTs againsT The peTiTioner she has been suspended. They have also made repor'r To The effecT Tha‘l The husband of The peTiTioner is always coming To The Office. In view of The above Two enquiry reporTs, allegaTions and counTer— levelled The and ThaT sheeT has already been allegaTions by parTies, charge filed againsT respondenTs No.5 ’ 6 on The complainT of The peTiTioner, in \ order To mainTain discipline and ecorum in The Office and To find ouT True of The facTs, respondenT No.2 CollecTor is direcTed To nominaTe an Officer of rank of Sub Divisional Officer T conducT enquiry inTo The whole episode by To The also To respondenTs No.4, 5 & 6, and giving opporTuniTy peTiTio er as afTer compleTion of The enqui , if allegaTions of The peTiTioner againsT No.4, 5 & 6 are fou d To be correcT, Then deparTmenTal acTion respondenTs No.4, are should be insTiTuTed againsT The . If in The enquiry, The peTiTioner is also found To be responsible for any cT of indiscipline and insubordinaTion, Then enquiry againsr The peTiTioner ma also be insTiTuTed. ,l XI—HC-22 1 31i Soma On The basis of enquiry, if presence of responden‘rs No.5 & 6 is found 3f pubiic adminisfm‘rion and discipline, The "ansfer 1’0 differen‘i’ places in order To i The Office. Similarly, in The enquiry, if found To be deTf‘imenTal To The inTeresT of riTies can consider her case‘al‘so far fransfer. disposed of. s and observaTions, The peTiTion stands (W.)P.No.1451/2005, I.A.Nos.4994/2005, and disposed of. ’ To be deTrimenTal To The inTeresT auThoriTies' can consider Their T‘ mainTain decorum and discipline ii presence of The peTiTioner is also public adminisTraTion, The auThc WiTh The above direcTion In view of This order, M. 5246/2005 and 6115/2005 also s‘l ParTies are enTiTled for cer Tified copy of This order. ’Sdl— L.C.BHADOO Judge . (@W)