mOH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTF PETmON (S) No. 2916 of2009 PETmONER : Kamalesh Kumar S/'o Late Mohanlal Goad, aged 32 years, resident of Housing BQard Colony, Bloek No. 7, Quai-ter No. 9, Jaaul Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) woridng in the post of Constable at P.S. Jamul, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. Stote of •Chhattisgarh through the Secretars.-,; Department of Home Affairs, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Superintendeiit ofPolice, Distnct Durg (C.G,) 3. S.D.O. (P) cum Enquiry Officer, Pataa, Distnot Durg, (C.G.) WRTT pETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTrTLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Asnihotai, J. Preseiit: SltriT.K.Tiwari, Advocateforthepetitioner. Slm Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondeiits, ORDERfORAL^ (Passed on 22"a day of June, 2009) 1. By fhis petition, the petitiouer challenges the legality and valldity ofthe chaige-sheet dated 3Q.03.2009 (Amiexure P/l) againstthe petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was woAing oi^lhe.post of Constable at Police Station Jariiul, District Durg. A chai^e-sheet was issued on 30.03.2009 alongwifh a list 6f documents. According to ieamed counsel for the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Pataii, District Durg, who is the Eriquiry QEBcer, cannot decide to hold enquiry mto fhe charges against two or more govemment servants without permission of tfae competerit autliority i.e. the Disciplmary Authority. • 3. Shri Tiwari relies on lettsr dated 8,5.2009 (Aimexure P/2) aad 19.5.2009 (Annexure P/4). Shri Tiwari iurther rcfers to pfovisions of- Rule 18 oflfae M.P./C.G. Civil Serviees (Ciassification, CiaArol & Appeal) Rules, 1966 in supportofhig suhmission. 4. This issue came up for consideration before the Divisicu Beneh of Andhra Pradesh Higb Court in W.P. No. 5424/1973 (R. Nwasimka ? L^ <. B^- ("• ^..^^ 1 ^^® •ff' 7. Reddy v. The StateofAndhraPradesh)'wherem it was observed in para 8 thatthe most important aspect whi'ch should govem such an enquiry is that it should be conducted in aecordance wifh the principles ofnatural justice affording a reasonabie opportunity to the charged person to put forwar3 his defence. If a char.ee ofHcer does not want a ioint trial alongwith other persons he should take that objection before the Tribunal itself. In any case a joint trial ofmore tiian one charged officer cannot be held to be bad ualess it is shown that some prejudice was caused to the charged person by virtue ofthe joint trial. In Suryakant Tiwari v. State ofM.P. & Others', relied on by leamed counsel for the petitioner, leamed Single Judee of the Hish Court of M.P. observed that where there is no order by a competent authority for common proceeding, the entire proceeding is vitiated being wifhout jurisdiction irrespective of the proof of prejudice, which must be In the present case, it is not pointed out that how the petitioner would be prejudiced ifthe petitioner alongwith another constable Chhotelal when they were charged for the alleged offence inthe same incident. I am in respectfal agreement with the view taken by leamed Division Bench of the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh wherein it has been held thatthejoint enquiry cannot be held as vitiated on a simple ground that the persons who are charged for fhe same ofFences, are being tried together. There is ao prejudice caused to the petifioner. The foremost requirement is the compliance ofprinciples of natural justice. At this stage, the petitioner canaot complain of principles of natural justice as the case is at the initial staee. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise objection before the Enquiry Officer, if so advised. Without expressing aiy opinion on merits of the case which may prejudice the rights and contentions of the petitioner, this petition is dismissedbeinsdevoidofmerit. ) _7^- SatishK.Agmhotri Judge ' 1975 (1) SLK 21986 MPU 37