x IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHI-IATTISGARH.AT BILASWR w.P.No. iZ‘W /2002 Ramji Koushal Aged about 54 Years S/o Late Doman Singh Koushal Shankar Nagar, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS 1' $§£§nigfi§ia§§fe§§$rse§§3d C°rp°‘ § 2 The Senior Regional Manager, Reglonal Offlce,Food Corporatlon of India, Ralpur (C.G ) 3. The District Manager, F0061 Corpora- tion of india, District Office, Raipur,/('C;G.) (J PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF TFE CONSTITULION OF INDIA mi‘wwwwm ““m‘MW M x 1 i arm—r raw, W133, faaw 'axrawm W? 3571135 ‘ ’ M.f:.&‘/a.:..[£u.4.[az.‘93: ma 200 mmmm $31Wanéw 18-10-2002 Hcard on the question of ad Prayer in this writ petiu'on 1T been served on the petiiioner., Itjs the case of the pen®her that as he is in transaction with respect to which the 110 way involved in the entire disciplinaly proceedings have bee: case for initiating the ”departmen' the peu'h'oner, in View of the defer disciplinary Authority to reconsider his an appropriate’direction to the defences and if it is found proper Ito drop the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the disciplinary r proceedings have been initiated and the petitioner has also Submitted his that all such gléa’er , as am a Jailable to the petitioner must have been for the Enquiry Ofhcer to .‘jconsider the taken by him. Thus, it is now i arrive at a hndin ‘ defences on its own merits and t( before him. In such circumstances, the of material, which is produced question of asking the discipli nary Authority to reconsider whether a ’ deparnnental enquiry ought or ou; ght not tohave been initiated, does not Shri P.S.Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. 1111881011. \t \" \ x s for quashing the charge sheet, which has I u drawn up his posting being elsewhere, no tal proceedings is made out. According to Lees raised by him, this Court should issue reply to the charge sheet. It is presumed g, naturally on the basis as Hence, the otenos d annot be cetd. ne cntln rase c acpe mg hard lene com des n d Hav e ard sel, the Court o ot \dnd any goo d o tta wnt ptn g h t groun t enerin this eitio. It goes without sayin tat he s rre to be ven l or o s nc d e petih'oner i equid gi ful ppotunity t lead hi defee an th Enqu- l tr s best o ose of the a1 edgs i137OmCer Wil y hi t dlsp d1s01plmy Emcem at an ear date subject, of o o the c peran f the tne the proceedins g. With the above oervations, he etion sta smissed. bs t pti nds di Consequently L. A No.41 19 2002 also stands disosed p of. Sdl— p,C.Naik Judge [View ly curse, t o otio o peitior m XI-HC-227’ > ' 1 anWm gr“. wmw WWW 5 mi mqwm ‘ K 1,.— WW131E®W %a¥%man%¥1 .