•~\ IN THE HON'BI^ HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. (S32^) /2010 PETITIONER ^§ w^^-^'" .^~ ^"^-"" ^ RESPONDENTS Abdul Rehnian S/o. late Mohd. Aziz Khan, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Jawaharpara, Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Head Constable no. 1100, presently posted in Resen^e Line Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Departnient of Home, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) /'^y\ !J^^^^\^ iy"::Ky l^l^y 2. Superintendent of Police, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. City Superintendent of Police Bhilainagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Enciuiry Officer) 4. Reserve Inspector, Reserve Line, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,:.5SS®222 :S» KCT«S.Wa y=.e. t'-r^:w ^ ^J' • .• • HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6321 of 2010 PETITIONER Abdul Rehman •^ VERSUS- RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Shashank Thakur counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA ORDER (29.10.2010) Grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) a departmental enquiry has been initiated against him and the same is impermissible because the charges levelled in the departmental enquiry are similar to those for which criminal case was registered against him in which he has already been acquitted by the competent Court. 2. Main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that for the same incident departmental enquiry cannot be initiated against him because even the witnesses are common in the criminal trial as well as in the departmental enquiry. He submits that pursuant to the show cause notice given to him he has filed his reply but without considering the same charge sheet has been issued. 3. It is now settled position of law that for the same act departmental enquiry can always be initiated by the department. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not made out any ground on the basis of which this petition can be entertained. Even if the witnesses are common, at this stage, this Court would not like to interfere with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Apprehension of the petitioner that he will not get justice in the departmental enquiry is not well founded because no such material has been brought on record to -^m^, w./ ^<2— this effect. More over, State counsel submits that in the departmental enquiry the petitioner would be given every reasonable opportunity to defend himself and merely on the basis of apprehension said departmental enquiry cannot be quashed. 4. Thus the petition has no merit and the same is accordingty dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^-