ii^a.uaEsi PAGE N0^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHHATTISTGARH af BILASPUR. ^' WRIT PETITIONNO. °H /200< •'- Devendra S ingh S/oShrL ^c^-f^ Si'v\^ Aged around tfs?years, Employed as Constable, ForceNo.-912332297 Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai Steel Plant Unit, BHILAI. District: Durg ( Chhattisgarh ). ^^^ p':.a^ ' .... Petitioner VERSUS 3. 4. l\^ Unionoflndia, Through: The Secretary, Ministry ofHome, North Block, New Delhi. ^ ^^/....^ ^••g'r^ s^-1^"""^......--"*^ ^••\^"^\ The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai Steel Plant Unit, BHILAI, District: Durg ( Chhattisgarh ). The Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai Steel Plant Unit, BHILAI, District: Durg ( Chhattisgarh ). The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai Steel Plant Unit, BHILAI, District: Durg ( Chhattisgarh ). ^""la:::::l..r1-; S^-^1"^ Respondents /" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2267 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF \-\ [(^ INbtA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER AND WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARY. MANDAMUS ETC. ^ XI-HG—78 'STI^T'cpr ^i<4) TT^T 3:H^?T SDHW -r " J s>—. '• \:-- ~5^( ^l^ld<4, yti1y4l<o, ^ciiylj,< . lA)^M0.^7^^Q^- WH^TT^RT^ "^200 3TT^?I TRW (<i?^<?<i^) '^cTTW ^f^T 3TT^T 25.02.2005 Shri Uttam pandey/ couns^ I.A.No.229/2005 for urge^it hearing is allowed. Heard on admission, <=hi^f<n<fli ^fT^ff ^ f^^l ^^K ^^tRw^n^T for the petitioner. Learned counsel for tHe petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent empl{)yee of CJ.S.F. posted in B.SP- unit at Bhild. He is a Constab|e, Force No.912332297; He has been served with a charge shee1 fiied by the petitioner and th< yerge of termination. Learned c< in which the reply etc., have been t departmental enquiry is at the ?unsel submits that the petitioner apprehends thoit since the de|)artment is prejudiced with the petitioner, therefore, orders o1| harsh punishment tike dismissal, removal or discharge etc., may b4 passed against him. I have perused the recor^ls of the case and have also gone through the reliefs claimed by t|ie petitioner, The first relief has been claimed for setting aside ^he entire charge sheet as well as the enquiry report and the s^cond relief cldmed is regarding issuance of a direction to the respondents to treat the entire period of suspensipn GS period s] far as the first relief is con 3ent on duty with Gll benefits< So cerned/learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out ^ny cogent reason as to why the^ XI-HC—78 ^Ti^T^T f^-licb ^TS1T t3TT^?I $h^i<=?) ^ i:! i iiiiiiiiaiihirtii' ^, Q ^ ^ ^ WHdT^RI^ "s^r^TRM^, ^ti1<riji<o/ [®icni^^< . k3<^ ^o.J^A^S'" "'^200 ^TT^?T TT5W ( ^I^<S1<^T) ^TclTW^f^T 3:IT^T -^ charge sheet should be quashed chi^I^i41yi ^iiH<nT~^ is^l <P?i^i< "^ ^rtRrqf 377^T and why the enquiry should not he allowed to be completed. About |+ie second relief, admitt'edly, an order has to be passed by the di^ciplinary authority alongwith the final orders of the disciplinary |5roceedings and it shall be too early for this Court to express 4"y opinion or pass any order on this point. In the opinion of this Coijirt/no ground is made out for interference in the departmental petition is premature and it is dsmissed at the admission stage itseif. However, the petitioner v^ould be free to rdse all the grievances including the pleadings appropriate forum at theappropjriate stage after completion of the enquiry ' and after passing <| eventuaiity arises, With the aforesaid obs^rvGtions, this petition stands dismissed at this stage* proceedings at this stage. The taken in this petition before the f the final order, in case any Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge