/'^' y 'U AT WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2612 iiuul Kumar Tiwari. S/o. Ravi ShaiTker Tiwari, aged about 35 years, Presently posted as Assistant Teacher Priman' School Lahod- Block Baloda Bazar, Distriet Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarfa througli Secretary, Education Departmfirit, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavas, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2's Director. Public. Educatioa, Directorats Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3) Shri A.Laki'a, S/o Not Kaown. Joint Director, Directorate of Public Education, Raipur (C.G.) 4) District Education OfEcer, Raipur (C.G.) WRTT PETCTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA Hoa'fe!< ^ .a-i&ia Present: Smt Hairiida Siddique, Ad' Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy resDQiidents. +a •B-for the petitioner. Govenmient Advocate for tlie Sf rp^^^^^ /^n H%ti'1 /•l-s-t- />fk ^•T^^/ •'?nQ' ;U Vii L/0 uO.^ ul IVJLO-^, AWO^ By this petition, the pstitioner challenges the order dated 09.01.200i (AsRe's.we P/l) wher^by depai-tmental enquir\' has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis ofserious allegations of Biisbehaviour with giris aad otaer ladies traveUmg with the petitioner. Leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioaer submits that this eaquin' has been initiated on the basis ofnews-paper report, therefore it slioulc be quashed. Smt. Siddique farther submits that the requiresnent of lav ^L n[:^:.'n 4. as prescribed under Ru2e 14 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Serv'ices (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966'), has not bsen complied with and the petitioner has not been given opportunityto file his responss. te that as it may, without going into merits ofthe case, the departmental •^ enquir^' may proceed in accordaiice with law as contemplated imder provisions ofl4 ofthe Rules, 1966. In view of the foregoing, at this stage, the charges caimot be quashed v/hen departniental enquin' is pending before the Inquity authority. There is no merit inthis case and is accordingly dismissed sunmiarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge