^lcr (^IV- •\. P.tSl i9o. 4028 of 2007 G.M. Jha S/o Late Shri V.S. Jha, Aged About 50 yrs. Occupation, Assistant Director, Tribal Research Institute Raipur, Resident of Kanchangaiiga Colony Raipur (C.G.) 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tnbal Departoient (S.C. & S.T.) D.K.S. Bhawaa Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Additional Secretary, Department (S.C. & S.T.) D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) 3 Director, Tribal Research Institute Uruversity Campus Raipur (C.G.) PETITSON UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents on advance copy. OR&L ORDER (11.12.2007) Heard on adnussion. Leamed couasel for tlie petitioner argues that previously a coinm.on departmeatal proceeding was iaitiated agaiast the petitioner bearing No. l71/Four/Reader/99, Jagdalpur dated 10.1.2000 but later on, on jurisdictional ponit, fhe coiainon proceedings were wifhdrawn by order dated 5th March, 2007 aad now, on fhe sarne cause of action, a separate departmental proceeding has been drawn agauist fhe petitioner uiider Rule 14 (1) ofthe C.G. Civil Seivice (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule, 1966. He subraits fhat initiation of fhe subsequent proceediags on ftie saine cause of action is not inaintaiaable. vatfci W.P.(S)No. 4028 of 2007 /J^/ I have considered the points raised by the leanied counsel for the petitioner. If inadvertently or due to luistaJke, a comTnon departraental proceeding was drawn against a deliuquent einployee and when raistake was discovered, he was discharged of tiie Said coiiunon proceeding, then, there wouM be ao bar in. iiiitiation of a separate proceediug against him. for fhe saiue cause of action, for wliicb., tlie earlier coTnmon proceeding was drawn. Leamed coiinsel for fhe petitioner also could not point out aiiy provisions of law, which raay prohibit such separate proceeding drawn against the delinquent em.ployee. There appears to be no irregularity or iBegaUty white drawiag a separate proceeding vide order dated 5th March, 2007 (AnTiexure-P/ 1). I do not find any illegality in. steps taken by the State. The petition has no nierit, fhe same is disiaissed at fhe Diotion stage itself. However, lookiag to fhe tiine spent froia 1998 tiU date, it is expected fhat the conceraed authority of fhe Goverainent would expedite the proceeding^of departDiental enquiry at the earliest. - - Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge