W5tf BBWsf c^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH. WRIT PETITION IS\ N0, ^\ /2011 PETITIONER ^ ^l i^ ^•v<:w^- ^9-y ^•m^ •^^""" ^^ RESPONDENTS GAYATRI SARKAR, Age about 27 Years, D/o Shri Ramchandra Sarkar, Working as Lady Constable Bal Sankhya Kramank 071733287 at Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Bhilai Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, R/o Room No. 7, Block No. 5, Street No. 6, Sector 3, CISF Ladies Hostel, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ^ ^' 1. UNION OF INDIA, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Inspector General, Western Zone, Central tndustrial Security Force Campus, Sector 35, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 10. Dy. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Sector - 1, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) Commandant. Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai . Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Sector - 1, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 5. Enquiry Officer / Asstt. Commandant, Central Industriat Security Force, Bhilai Unit, NSPCL Unit, Sector-1, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ J^?^^ ^c ^i^ai sftNi^» 'S'^f ^{WW^, fS^\W[S, f®t<rll-(-1^< ^^...}^..:f..-..Gl^.:.£3.'iLljL ^200 ^T^?T TT^R> (iicl^^) 3ff^r "SFT'RFTW TOT^fl^liFRNF fCTw ^f^r 3Ti^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Bhrivastava. J. 13-06^0 Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant flor the petitioner. ^olicitor Generai for respondent No.1 on advance copy. This petition has been fiied by 10/3/2011 (Annexure P/6) and 1^/3/2011 (Annexure P/10) by which, petitioner's request for change of enq|jiry officer has been rejected. Learned counsel for the peti|ioner submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to departmental enqi(ry on baseless charges. After receipt of charge sheet, the petitioner submitte any false complaint against her supjerior officials. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order compiainant. Therefore, a represenl same has been rejected. Therea] (Annexure P/8 and P/9). Ultimal representation of the petitioner has enquiry officer, enquiry has been pet'rtioner submits that as respondenj and impartially in the capacity of the On the other hand, learned c^ the apprehension of the petitioner respondent brought to the notice of 15/3/2011 (Annexure P/10), wher^i oni^I<vt<flti "W^ff Tf ^St ^f^PE$R cfr ^tRw :.,^^i the petitioner aggrieved by order dated her repiy stating that she has not made ated 24/2/2011, respondent No.4 has appointed respondent No.5 as enquii|y officer, who is equivaient in rank to the |ation (Annexure P/5) was made but the fter, the petitioner made appiteations |ely, vide order dated 15/3/11, the |>een rejected and without changing the iDfoceeded. Learned coun^i for the no.5 is an officer of the rank equivatent to the compiainant and also in the s^meunit and he is not likely to act fairly nquiry offlcer. unsel for the respondent submitted that as no basis. Learned counsel for the the Court, the contents of letter dated in the petitioner has been given fuil gi^I^lp H^T^IT^—1<<S/140—2/20^ I—1,50,000. f:<!'^ ''\.._^ ^^^^ 3Ti^T'^T fqTiicr» WT^n^r^FRw Deepti ^1 HI»ICfT^»<fl^» TSf r-i{WW^\, ^^W\<c, f®l(y1l-H>j,< u3..p-(^<^ -^^\ jn ^..........^.............^.................^....^^Q^ ^TI^T TT5W (<iq^q<^) ^<nw ^f^r3TT^T -—^— <=M<ltq<fl"1 ^ll^<viT "? t^^ ^^K ^)>3tRPT3^T assurance that proper opportun|ty of hearing would beafforded and fair and impartial enquiry would be mad^. In the applications (An|iexure P/8) and (Annexure P/9) as als& representation dated 22/3/201 J (Annexure P/11), no specific ground for change of enquiry officer has b^en made bythe petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not brir|g to the notice of this Court, any provisions governing procedure of departn|iental enqujry and prohibition of appointment of the enquiry officer of the ^ame unit or of the same rank as of the complainant. The application ^ the petitioner is quite vague, cryptic and there is no material to sugge^t that enquiry offlcer would not act fairiy. Therefore, apprehension of thje petitioner appears to be ili-founded and prayer for change of enquiry o^icer has been rightiy rejected by respondent No.4. 1 am therefore not inclih deserves to be dismjssed and i^ This order shali not, appropriate application on sucll the law, justifying prayer for cha| |ed to interfere with the matter. The petition accordingiy dismissed. ^owever, preclude the petitioner to make grounds, as may be available to him under ^ige of enquiry officer. ____- Man.ndraMobanShrivastov* Judge Wff^T^fhrgSOITOT, ^rcm^—FS/l40—2/2011—1,50,000.