C^-tost- IN THE HXGH GOURT OF JUOIGATURE AT BIUSganBS WRIT PETITION fS) N0. q^'?o OF 2006 PETITIONER ^^ .<^% ^s^ ^ ^ »»•' «*'• <<<'•' )./•" l<' . ^y GanpaU S/o Rammuittr aged about 38 years, Occupatioa OperaBye in H&R Section of Coke Ovens and Goal Chemicals Department, Bhiiai Steel Plant, R/o Sector-11, Bhilai, Tahsit and Distrtct Durg (C.G.). 6"' RESPONDENTS vessi/s 1. State ofCrthattisgarh Through Adfm Jati' Anusandhan Avam Prashikshan, RaSpur, TahsU and District RaJpur (C.G.). 2. TheCoUector, Ra^nandgaon, TahsU and Distnct Rajnandgaon (LG-). /^3. The TaAsildar, Rajnaidgaon, Tahsil and Dfstrtct Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4. The Deputy OiUectBr, Rajnandgaon, JahsU and DistrisX Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 5. The Steel Authority of India Umted, BhUal SteeJ PJant, C.E-0. and C.C.D. through the Genera! Manager, BhjfaJ, DJstrtct Durg (LG.). e K K- iBfehl-;A hinatuwytifcridwaay^togi-t^^.flu^.Htei^ H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 7090 of 2006 Petitioner Ganpati Vcrsus Respondents State ofCUiattisgarh& others Sia^e Bench : Hon'bte Mr, Justice Satisli K. ^aihotri. Shri A-wadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 fo 4. None for the respondents No. 5 and 6. ORDER (Passed on thfe 20th day ofnecemhRr, 2006) The foUowiag order of tfae Court is passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. The petitioner was appointed as Plaat Attendant in fhe Bhflai Steel Plant. vide fetfer (iated 30th November, 1994. A departmental cnqiiiry was initiated on the basis of thc coininuiucation dated 21.7.2006 of the Tahsfldar, addressed to the CoUector, Rajnandgaon aad fhe letter dated 27.7.20M of the Deputy CoUector, Rajnaadgaon, addressed to ^-- the Additional ChiefVigilaace OflBcer, Bhilai Steel Plant. It appears that a departmental enquuy has been iaitiated agaiast the petitioner, ia regard to fhe caste certificate, on the basis of the afdrestated communications. 3. The petitioner m ttiis petition seeks a direction to quash the communications dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure P/8) & 27.7.2006 (Annexure P/9], aud the proceediiigs offhe departinental enquinr vide onler dated 28.11.2006. Communication between two parties cannot be quashed as fhe communication is not addressed to the petitioner and fhe petitioner is not prejudiced by fhe said communications. The Thakur enquiry mitiated against the petitbner on the basis of the said commuiucatioas, is open to chaflenge in the course of tfae departinental enquiry and fhereafter also. At this stage when tlie departmental enquiry has been mitiatEd to find out facts, the petitioner cannot contend that fhe petitmuer has been prejudiced, when no order, imposing punishment or attachingauy stigma, has beeu passed against tiie petitioner. The writ petitiou, at this stage, is not maintamable. Thus the same is dismissed. No oirter as to costs. ---.--—_ - - Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge