'n ^5S. ig^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION No. ^?-^ /2006 Petitioner Respondents ^4 [^LV ^w x^ •* 1^' .<^/ -<i-' ^' ,••' w (3) • R.R.Jha, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Devi Dayal Jha, R/o D-1 Officers Colony, Post: Korba colliery, Dist. Korba (CG) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Seepat Road, Bilaspur(CG)-495006 A K Shukla, Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Gevra Area. B N Sinha, ChiefVigilanceOfficer, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) 495 006 Writ Petition under Article226 ofthe Constitution of India. i* ^ XI-HC-78 <TW^TI StrtTTch 3^'^rraRra', aTflu'is, Riciiyy ^^^f..^..w^^ 200 311^1 4s<ch (lcll^s«<]iT) SIT^T^Tf^TO (raTa.n^Tstiiith ?T(ITW <rf?tT sn^r tii<it<i<fl-i i4i*idT?ftec?t<Ri<^i< ^siRtirgn^T 11.8.2006 nsti-hjted ilnelss belfore Mr. P. Diwakar, 5r. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.5. Koshy, Advocate Heard on admission. The main gr'ievance raised that a deparl-mental enquiry ii on. However, on account of il shifted to Nagpur, therefore, th dnd during that perrod he also fel abte to aftend the proceedings 11.4.2006,17.5.2006 &. 22.5.20061 this regard to the Enquiry Offic^r and later on, submitted the medi|cal also showing his inability to atterjd officer proceeded ex-parte agai) ex-parte conclusion on 18.7.2006. Learned counsel for thel punishment order has not therefore,he is not in a position Having heard learned coun; t?-the facts ond circumstances Adv^cate with Mr. (5ary AAukhopadhya, fdf respondent No.l on advance copy. by the petitioner in this petition is against the petitioner was going ss of the petitioner's wife, she was s petitionar also went to the Nagpur ill dnd on account of that he was not the Enquiry Officer on 4.4.2006, The petitioner sent communicatior! in on 3.4.2006, 7.4.2006 & 12.5.2006 certificates and other documents the enquiry. Even4hen the enquiry ist the petitioner and recorded the tr befen •fc petitioner submitted that so far passed against the petitioner, file appeal against the said order. al for the parties and having regard if the case, I am of the considered .\ P.T.O. ^--. i» ^ XI-HC-78 3"T •<ii'i<i<n<<, (STfl^'Ko, Ridwy HWc'irai^nq> ^ 200 3ii^s(i ^ao (tcit^ct'SIET) an^i^iT^iN aW3l1^Tsh*iro Roshan/- ^^ •? 5; '.y'- ?T<TRTC flfN 3I1^T -l^ 'ioneli" opinion that this is not a case required. Hovuever, the petitione^r along with necessary documents respondent No.l may decide th^ accordonce with law. With the aforesaid, the pep'ition Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. stand disposed of. ^uhere interference by this Court is is at iiberty to make representation before respondent No.l and in -hjrn, representation of the petitioner in Nb +i^<-i4)-f wraTffte(A<Ri+di<, ^iSrf^H 311^1 stonds disposed of. 3250/06 &. 1.A. N0.7750/06 also Sdi- L.C-Bha Judge P.T.O. i*.