w> ik-- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.HON'BLESHRSDHIRENDRAJVHSHRA^& HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ ADpellant (Petitioner) Versus Writ AppeaS No. 341 of 2010 Nageshwar Prasad Tripathi, aged about 62 years, S/o Ganganand Tripathi, R/o Newari Post Shivpurwa Vi'a Amarpatan Distt. Satna, MP. Respondents 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. State ofChhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. Director General Jail, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. Inspector Generai of Prison, Raipur. TheSyperintendentCentralJaJI,Raipur. The Superintendent 1 Ciass District Jaii Jagdalpur, Djstt. Bastar. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Vallabh Bhawan, BhGpal. Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsalfoftheappeiiant Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt Advocateforthe State. ORAL JUDGSVIENT (24th January, 2011) PerDhirendra M/sftra.J The petjtioner's writ Retition against hjs dismissal from service and the order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Director General; Jail, whereby his appeal has been rejected, vras dismissed vide judgment dated 16th March, 2010 (Annexure A/1). His petition for review of the above order has been again dismissed vide order dated21st June, 2010 (Annexure A/2). 02. The appeiiant has preferred this appeal against the aforesraid orders along with an application (IA No. 1 ) for condonation of detay as there is a deiay of68 days in preferring thjs appeai. 03. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the appiication, which is aiso supported by the affidavit 6f the appellant, the application is ailowed and deiay in fiiing the appealis condoned. 04. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appeilant was appointeci as Jail Warder in the year 1967. Hewas placed under suspensiorton 9.12.1980. He was served with a charge sheet on 15.12.1980 and ordered to be attached to the District Jait.Ambikapyr vide order dated 24.1.1981 andthesecond s. w Q' charge sheet was issued on 21.12.1981. During departmentai enquiry, ex- parte evidence of prosecution witnesses were recorded and on the basis of report of the departmental enquiry, he was removed from service vide order dated 16.9.1982. The petitioner's appeal against the order of removal was again dismissed bythe Director Generat, Jail,Chhattisgarh,Raipur, vide order dated 12.9.2007. The petitioner by fiiing a writ petition chailenged the order of the appellate authority confirming his remova! from service, on the ground that the enquiry was vitiated as he was not given subsistence atlowance after suspension from service and therefore, he could not partidpate in the enquiry proceedings and ex-parte departmental enquiry was conducted. 05. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with an observation that the appeiiate authority h-as deaft with the question of payment of subsistence allowance and refusal to accept some of the amount sent by the answering respondent to the petitioner.\ There was defauit on the part of the petitioner to receive the amount on some occaslon and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the issue of non-payment of subsistence allowance for seeking a writto hotd that the departmental enquiry was vitiated. While djsmissing the revsew petition, the ieamed Single Judge has referred to the order of the appellate authority dated 12.9.2007, wherein details of payment towards subsistenGe allowance, has been discuss^;. It has been specificaily mentioned inthe appellate order that the bank drafts towards subsistence allov^ance sent to the appeltant couJd not be delivered to hjm as he was not available in Ambikapur Jail from 1982. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition has also been dismissed with certain ctarifications. 06. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appeilant has not disputed the detaiis of payment of subsistence allowance made to the appeliant, as mentioned in the order of the appellateauthority. He has reiterated the grounds taken by the petitioner before the Jeamed Single Judge in the writ petition as well as thereafter, in the review petition. Reiiance of leamed counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Gourt in the matters otGhanshyam Das Shrivastava Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh and thatof the MP High Court in Mathura Prasad Dixit Vs. Unlon of fndia and of/rers2, is of no help to the appellant as, jn the instent case, the leamed 'AIR 1973 SC 1183 2 2003(4) MPHT 298 Singte Judge has observed that the subsistence allowance was paid and tendered to the petitipner. Learned appeilate authority has aiso rejected the aforesaid ground of the appetlant by eilaborately referring to the detaiis of payment of subsistence allowance to the appeiJant. Forthe aforesaid reasons, v^e are of the opiriion thatthe fearned Singje Judge, after elaborately referring to the arguments advanced by iearned counsel for the petitioner, has firstly dismissed the writ petition by a well reasoned detaiied order and thereafter, the review petition has aiso been rejected after considering the arguments of the petitioner. We find no substance in this appeat, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismtssed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ^ Vi