sii^r q>i [<;•)[+ ^SH 3Ti^?T a)*liq) 7S5f ^w\<fl-if, VnSiwW, KlvftW^ i? *41*(rtl *<4tsb •W^ 200 SK^ 'VKK (1pf^5W) WITW ^lfOT 311^1 Writ^ppeal N0.182QO&7 APPELLANTS 1 Secra|tery State Secre D.K.S Direc Poliu |of ChhatBsgarh, Through Principte Department 6f Home, |.Bhavan, Mantrataya, Raipur (GG) 2. Direc|or General of Police, l-1ead Offiee <rf Department, Raipur(CG) 3. Supe (CG) |intendent of Potice, Champa Janjgtr Versus RESPONDENT D.B.: HON'BLESHRIL.e.BHADt>O.J.& HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUh (1 tt)l*f[fl<i1Tl ^l*l<ciT ^fec£t<F>tt$i< ^affim sii^i Nare(idra Kumar Mishra, s/o Late Shri Oaut^m Mishra, aged about 44 years, (Terrjiinate Sub tnspector), P.S. Baraipvrar, Dlstrict Champa-Janjgir (CG), Pres4nt Resklent of SakG, Distrid Char|ipa-Janjgir(CG) WRJSINHA. J. Appearance: Shri Prashant ^Aishra, Advo4ate Gen»alwith Shri M.P.S. Bhatte, Dy. Govemment Advocate for the Shri Sunil Otwani, counset f(jr Stateyappellants. the respondent. ORAL ORDER 2.20081 !ten 3^?'^l<ll<r>''<, E!iTfl'MJI(;, fslcil+iy WHW **<!* sni?r iw? ('pf^a^ti) ^ 200 3TI^T ?ff R-li* ^S?T 3iT^T^Tff^ 'renwafci aii^Si 2- ^ra^T*ftT|ttlll?ff '^\fST^' <f^^R ii'sjftt? sn^r L.C. Bhadoo.J. Heard. The State has prefeired this dated 12* December, 2006, W.P.No.1328/2003 (Narendra Otfiers), whereby Hon'ble Single| quashed the order dated 19.8.19) Police, Bilaspur Range and also Director General of Potice and vitiated. However, itwas further i way of the respondents/authoritief departmental enquiry, jfso advised) There is delay of1W<to/s 'ifi An application for condonaB< theState. The brief fiacts leading to sheet containlng tbree chaiges, made wrong entry in the Rojnami proceeded to Bihar for arrest of th^ fact the respondent ateng with The wrong entry in the Rojnamac( C.GJM.P. Police R^ulations. misconduct under Rute 17 of thef Rules 1977and Rule 3 (3) <rf the ] Rufes, 1965 by remaining absent) sending back the revolver witti [writ appeal being aggrieved bythe onjer pa^sed by the Hon'bte Singte Judlge in Kui^iar Mishra, vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Judge while altovwng the wnt petitton, .19p9, passed by the Inspector General of pie order dated 2.5.20)2 passed by the |efd that the departmentel enquiry was ob^erved thatthis order shall notcome (n ttie iefs (appellants herein) to fniBatB a ftwh in arcordance with law; fill^g this writ appeat. kn of delay vide I.A.No.1 has been flled by f|ing of this wrtt appeat are Biat a charge |fstly, the respondent (peWoiw ttiereinr) is(sha Sanha on 7.2.1999 indicaUr®thsrt he accused namety, Saudha BhaAna when m employees teft for Bihar on 11.2.1999; ia is vlotative of regulation No.634 of the Secondly, the respondent <»mmitte<t Madhya Pradesh Chrfl Semces fl.eave) IWadhya Pradeeh Civit Services (Conduet) without reporUng b®Ato e offlee antf ottjer ofBcer. Thirdty, commlttad miscQnduct ottter 3:5? "i||<)|rt<l, »Tfl^'l<o, Rwi'Hy W^v\\ **11<h WI, 200 an^?r tnra? (^j^fyi^T) an^rwtow ^pnsn^iwiw 'TOiiwoitg 3ii^i -3 reportp-om Distritit 19%lto dat^cf furttler |under Rute 3 (2)anct (3) of ttie h4s IRutes, 1965 bysendinga sick The S.D.O.y), SaM, |Enquiry Officer. The Enqufry Officer| |sent theenqulry report on 23.7.1 IChampa, who in tum submitted th® Bilaspur Range. On the basis of tl| Police Bi'laspur Range by order herein from his services with altowancesonty during the suspensk Being aggrieved by the sai<1 appeat beforeffie Director General Raipur, dismissed the appeal filec| 2.5.2002, sfartlng that there was no| order passed by the Inspector respondent preferred writ petitton N^ the Hon'ble Single Judge vide ordei) the orcter psssed by ttre Hon'ble appeal. The atlegations of the was never served on h'nn in ttie W.PJC.G. Ch/il Senrtces (hereinafter referred to as the (appeltants herefn) despite knowlngl ttrerein)was sick and undergotog tre^ Genel'al Sindte (Classffic^Bon Riles ^raferi^'wraf ^f^S <f«f^i< i? ^ff^T 'aii^l jdh^ Pradeshr C'nnl Seraces (Gonduc^ his restderw®at Raigarh. Janjgjr Champa was appointed as lconcludedlheenqujryon 16.7.1999 anet theSupartntentlCTtofPoNc®, JanjSr ^ame to the Inspector General of Potice ^e said report, the Inspector Qeneral of 19.8.1999 terminated th®responctent penatty of pa^nerrt of subsistBnce (n period. order, the respondent herein fited an ! Police. The Director General of Police, by Uie respondent vhte order dated [merit in ths appeal and no enror in the of Police; Again^ the said ordar, ttie .1328Q003, vrtiich has been allcwed by Idated 12-12-2006; Being agafwvwiby Judge the Stats has preferred ttiis writ respoijdent herein were that Uie charge sheet njanner prescribed urKter Rtde 30of Bre i, Gontrot, and Appea^Rutos, iOGB 1966'). The respondentatemployw Ure fact that the resp»ndent(petitioner re^itment In Bhubaneswar, all^iecfly afflxed TS^ ^nw^, w-^v'is, ftrtiuy *11*IWI **11* sirisi ?n Ri-fi'* '(TSH 'STT^T sh+il<=h an^ w (li'<f'l«i<w) "WI, 200 TCITW ^ifcr 3ii^r ^ q?T<itF(rr<ilTf *li+i^l* '^\f^rt- •^I^R ^ affitH SD^T opportunity to the petifioner, to fi before the enquiry ofRcer. The the chargesheet at his residenc^ at Raigarh, whteh was never ra;e)ved by the respondent: Hon'bte Single Judge, in p^ra 26 ofthe impugned order, hetd that"ttie entire departmental proceeding^tvere bad as Uie flret step by the enquiiy proceeding i.e. achial service ofU(e charge sheet on the delinquetrtemployee by the respondents was not donef The mode adoptecl by e respondents by alleged affixatioh of the eharge s^eet on the residenee tf the peUioner Is not one of the modes prescribed uncfer Rute 30 of the Rutes, 1986. Subs«|uent publication of notice or commuificaBon of dates by registered p<»t is not sufficient compliance of the fir^t step of the enquiry, leading denial <rf i|e reply and put forward his <ase effiecfivety IpetiUoner has successftiHy estabtisftett the prejudice caused to hlm by non-^ervlceof charg®shed on the petittoner; In viewofthe ctear flndlng wfth r^ard to servfce ofthecharge sheet, stated above, it is not necessary to g^ Into other pointe raised by the peUttoner." Ulhmately, the Hon'ble Singte Jfidge quashed ttis impugned ordeis i.e. the order dated 19-8-1999 passed (>y the Inspeetor Geireral of Pdtee and the order dated 2-5-2002 passed by fhe Director Seneral of Potice; Rute 30 ofthe Rules 196q envisages thateveryorder, nofice and other process made or issued under ^hese rules shall be served in person on the Governmentservantconcemed ^r communicated to him by regtetered post. tt is an admitted position 4s per para 26 of ttie impugned onter that the charge sheet was not served on|he respondent heretn. letter was sent by |Hon'bte Sir(gle Juc^e has held that the Pules, 1966 was not made amt the whole vltjated; In ttiis findh^, vre do not find any registered post that is why, compliance of Ruto 30 of the proceedinfls ofthe enqulry wer^ STI^T JKS K.'U^h TOT 311^1 sCTW sunlta 3^q' •^l'ill^, siifl'y'Ko, ftwiyy NINdl (b^l=b WI, 200 an^r TRW (ll<lit'l'si<iT) e-tflRSFt ^t^ 3TI^T '•> order 169 d^ys illegality or inflrmity in this appeal being devoid of m^ There is delay of We have perused the | cause has been shown for deserves to be dismissed on We fail to undersfan^ observation in last para departmental enquiry, if so present In the Court are nolj departmental enquiry has aulftorityfrom initiaUngthe knowntothem. SUIIthe in accordance wfth the impug( Therefore, the writ as on merits. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <:M*iT<n1(ii1t *iw<?if ^1^[3l <f^i<^.i< ^sifin SD^I passad by Hon'bte SingleJudge. Therefore, frits is liabte to be dismissed. in filing thte vmt ap(»al. |appeat, in whiGh, no rMsonable and sufficient in fillng this appeal, ttierefore, this appeat l|he ground of delay as wetl ss on merits ateo. that when Hon'bte Single Judge made an the impugned order for initlating a fresh advised, in accordance with law, the Law Officers in a posjtton to say as to whettier any fresh initiated or n<rt. Who prevented the competent departmentat enquiry? The reasonsarebest aufriority is at llberty to InHtete tt>e Inquhy red order, is dismissed on the ground of delay as well beefn ifrebh combetent aptjeal Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge