-^^— HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BiLASPUR WRST PETITION N0. 884 OF 2004 Lochan Prasad Maravj (ST) Vs. Shri D.R. Deshmukh & Others /3F4 Post for pronouncement ofthe order onz^-09-2008 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BELASPUR WRiT PETITION N0.884 OF 2004 PETITSQNiR RESPONDENTS 3 5. 6. Lochan Prasad Maravi (ST), S/o Saghru Ram Maravi, aged about 52 years, Ex. Process Writer, Village Khairi, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bitaspur (CG). Versus Shri D.R. Deshmukh. S/o Late Shri R.Y. Deshmukh, aged about 58 years, former District Judge, Bilaspur, presently posted a© Legai Advisor to Govornor of Chhattisgarh, Rajbhavan. Raspur (CG). The Hon'bte High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabaipur, through Registrar General. State of Chhattisgarh, through Chief Secretary, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG). The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, BJtaspur, through Regtetrar General. District Judge, Bilaspur (CG). Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Law and Justice, JaJsalmer House, Mansingh Road, New Delhi. ^Vrit petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, 4. Present:- Shri S. Imtiaz AJi, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State/responcient No.3. Shri Manlndra Shrivastava. Sr Adlvooate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents No,4 & 5. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri S.K. Beriwa!. Standing counsel for the Union of India/respondent No.6. ORDER (Passed on this ^' 'davof September, 2008) By this petitjon. the petitipner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dateci 14-9-1999 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the District & Sessions Judge and Disciplinary OfRcer, Bilaspur, whereby the petitioner has been removed from his sen/ices. The petjtloner has made certain incjdental prayers against the respondent NoJ , the then District & Sessions Judge, at present Hon'ble Juctge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner further challenges the appointment of Genera! Category candldates against the reserved post. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutsheli, as projected by the petitioner, are thgit the petitioner was working and posted s>s Process Writer in the Ci\41 Court, Mungeli, District Bilaspur A departmental enquiry was Jnitiated against the petitioner on charges of temporary embezzlement of Rs.369/-, which was received by the petitioner on 9-4-1991 as diet money. The same could not be deposited with the Nayab Nazir namely, Shri Ghodechore on the same day and the same was deposited on 3-7-1991. AccorctinQly, after proper enquiry, the DiscipSJnary Authority, having held that the petitioner has committed temporary embezzlement by keeping the amount for a long period, removed the petitioner from service under RuSe 10 (8) of the Madhya Pradesh/ChhattisQarh Civj! Servroes (Ctassification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for .sho/f "^he Ryfe.s, ^66'), by order cjated 14-9-1999 (Annexure-P/1). 3) Against the said order of removai, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The Hjgh Court of Chhattisgarh aliowed the appeal partiy upholding the removal of the petitioner from service and with regard to grant of subsistence allowance, the appeal was allowed for the period of November, 1997 till July, 1999 by order dated 26-2-2004 (Annexure-P/3). 4) Shri Alj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned punishment of removal from sen/ice »s shockingly djsproportionate to the gravity of mjsconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The order of removal was passed wjth mafa ffde sntentions. By passing the order of removal> the right of the pet'rtioner to be appointed against the reserved seat has been infringed. Shri Ali "^s^' further submits that the petttioner, after having received a sum of Rs.369/- as diet money on 9-4-1991 fell ilS seriously and he could not go even to coKect his amount of Rs.3,000/-, which was part payment of his provident fundl The petitioner resumed his duties on 3-7-1991 and dep^ited diet money of Rs.369/- on the same day. 5) Per contra, Shri Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.4 & 5, would submlt that there is no dlegaiity or jnfirmity in the departmental enqujry and the order. removjng the petitioner from service. was passed in accordance with law and, as such, no interference Js warranted ChaSEenge of the petitloner that the removal amounts to infringement of his right to the resen/ed post is without any basis Only the selected candiciates can be appointed anct the appointment of other persons cannot be ag'rtated in this petition without impleading them as party-respondents. The petitioner has no ri@ht to chailenge appointment of other persons on the post of Process Writers. 6) The petitioner has filed one more writ petition being W P No.6531/2006 (Lochan Prasad Maravi (ST) vs. D..R. Deshmukh & Others) making allegations against the first respondent as appointment of the first respondent as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh was contrary to the provision of the Constitution of India This Codrt by order dated 25-7-2007 dismissedl the said writ petition with cost, observing as under: "lO.The petition appears to be malafide, fabulous (sic - frivolous) and based upon no material for the cause of action allegedly shown to have arisen in favour of the petitioner. This is not the first attempt ofthe petitioner, this a consecutive petition by the same petitioner making such allegations, which appears to have been with an uiterior motive just to maSJgn the dlgnity of the high office of the Jucige The ^ ^-^•' petition deserves to be dlsmissed and for such a fabuious (sic ~ frivolous) petjtion, the petitioner shall be liable to pay cost. 11. In the result, the petltion is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousancl), which shall be deposited by the petitioner," 7) Having heard the Jearned counsel appearing for the rival parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. it »s evident that the impugned orcier of removai dated 14-9-1999 (Annexure-P/1) was passed after holding proper enquiry. in the said enqulry it was found that the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty by depositing the diet money after a period of about 3 months. The reason that the petitioner had fajlen sick cannot foe a sufficient ground for deiay in ciepositing the money, which has to be deposited on the same day Rule 379 of the Clvii Court Rytes reads as under: "379....Court clerks are prohibited from receiving any money other than diet-money and also from receiving any money after 4 p.m. Each cierk shaii daily s©ndthe whoEe balance jn his hands in a sealed ieather bag to the Nazir not later than 4.45 p.m. for custody. Next day he shal! take the bag and proceed to deal with the contents jn the regular manner." 8) With regard to appointment of other persons, who according to the petitioner, belong to General Category, as Process Writers, cannot be the subject matter of this petltion, as the petjtioner Is aggrieved by his removal, The petitioner cannot be permitted to chailenge the appojntment of other persons while questioning hjs removal from servjce Even the chajlenge of appointment of other persons cannot be agitated, as the persons who are appointed have not been impteaded as party respondents. Thus> for want of impleadment of necessary partjes also the question wsth regard to appointment of other persons cannot be agitated upon and examined in their absence. ^ Gowri 9) lt is also not a oase of the petitlonftr that the departmentol enquiry js defective or he has not been afforded opportunlty of hearing either in the departmental enquiry or thereafter. Thus, It is well settled principle of law that Hjgh Court should be ioathe in interferlng with th@ findjngs of the departmental enquiry and punishment thereon partjculariy in a case where there is no challenge regarding irregularity or ISIegality in the departmental enquiry or vioiation of principies of natural justice. (See P.D. Agrawai vs, State Bank of India and Others ). So far as other prayers with regard to holding enquiry, etc is concerned, the same are frivoious. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his self-same statements or alSegations on the basls of any documents or facts. Thus, the rellef in respect of hoicting enqulry & directing CBI enquiry is noticed to be rejected on the above statecl grounds. 10) Looking from all angles, the orders passed by the District & Sessions Judge and Disciplinary Officer, Bilaspur as wetl as the Appeilate Authority are unexceptionable and do not warrant interference. 11) In vtew of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ~~— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (2006) 8 SCC 776