mw / .- hri. :, r/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner Writ Petition (S) No. 2682 of2009 Victor Ekka, aged 53 yeai's, S/o Shri G. Elcka, working as Deputy Registrar at Pandit Ravishaiikar Shukla Universily, Amaiiaka, G.E. Road, Raipur, R/o Paiidit Ravishaakar Shukla Caoipus, Raipur (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. Pandit Ravishaiikar Shukla University, Raipiu', through its Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, tlirough its Secretary, Deparfcixient of Higher Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipiu'. Shri Laxmaa Chatur^edi, Ex Vice ChaaceUor of Paiidit Ravishaiikar Shzikla University, Raipur aiid Present Vice ChaaceUor of tiie Central Uuiversity, Koni, BUaspur (C,G,) Dr.(Sint,) Indu Anan.t, fhe Registrar, Paadit Ravishaiikar Shukla University, Raipur (C.G.) Shri L. D. Deoras, Ex Additional District Judge/Inquin7 Ofiicer, th.rough fhe Registrat', Paadit Ravishaakar Shukla Universily, Raipur (C.G.) Shri Alekh Ram Sahu, Lecturer aild Presentmg Officer, fhrough the Registrar, Paiidit Ravishaakar Shukla University, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honlale Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Sliri R. K. Keshenvaai, Advocate for tiie petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Paael La^Tyer for the respondent No,2. O RD E R (orall (Passed on fhis 23rd day ofJune, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner, beiag aggrieved by the appoiatoient of one Shri L. D. Deoras (x'espondent No.5)/retii'ed District Judge, as enquir)r ofiicer to look iato various aUegations of niisconduct agahist the petitioner and appointooient of Shri Alekh Ram Saliu (respondent ^No.6) as Presentitig Officer, has filed tliis petition. ^ ^^ 1<C^ '\^/ s?; 2. 5. Thakur Leained couusel appeailag for fhe petitioner subniits that no enquiry ofiicer out offhe staffofttie university caa be appoiated to enquire iato ttie imputation of charges levelled agaiast the petitioner. Accordiag to leained counsel, the respondeut No-6/Presentiag Ofiicer is junior io. raiik to the delmquent eniployee. Leanied counsel refers to tlie circular dated 28th Januaiy, 1980 (Annexure P/9), whereia. fhere was a provision, earUer, for appoiaitoient of judicial officer, which staads deleted subsequently. Be fhat as it may, at tliis stage fhe question raised by flie petitioner cannot be exanim.ed as the petitioner raay niake aii objection before fhe euquny officer as weU as the disciplmary aufhority. I do not find miy provisions of law, as it is not poiated out by leanied coxiiisel also, prohibitmg appoiatm.ent of a retired judicial officer as enquiry ofllcer. If fhe appoiataient of a retii'ed judicial officer or Deputy CoUector, Class-I has beeu delefed, subsequently, tiiat does uot prevent fhe discipliiiar}^ aufhority to appoint an officer of tlie raiik of Additional Distdct Judge to go iato the imputation of allegatious, leveUed agaiast fhe petitioner. An euquhy by a retii'ed District Judge would rafher be fah'er then appoiiitiiig an. officer froni the staff of the ziniversity itself, It appears tliat the petitioner is avoidiag the enquiry by filing this type ofpetition. In view of fhe foregoing, the petition has no raerit aiid fhe saiae is disiaissed. F— Sd/- ! 1 SatishK.Agnihotri Judge