wwy IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)N0. %/09’ /2009 Bhojraj Bagaswar, S/o. Late shri PETITIONER / Agnuram, aged about 29 years, R/o. Ward No.1, Nawagaon, District Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /’ 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, School Education, Department, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) / a 2] Director, Public Education, Directorate, Chhattisgarh 'Raipur, District Raipur (CfG.) /3] Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Dirict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5] Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, R ( aipur, District Raipur C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HATTISGARH / . st gIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Si No. 7107 of2oo9 ‘:?\ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. \ Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. , State/respondents. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy > Government Advocate for the ORDER ORAL (Passed on 08‘ day of April, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been removed from service vide order dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P/I) on the allegation of embezzlement ofpublic money to the tune of Rs, 3,85,000/- relying on a circular dated 2711966 (Annexure P/8). Shri Paranjpe further submits that a criminal case has been registered WRIT PETITION UNDER of the departmental enquiry as‘well as the criminal trial, the respondent- authorities, misinterpreting the circular dated 27.7. 1966 has removed the petitioner from service. Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioner has been removed from service in View of the circular issued by the General Administration Department. Since there is serious allegation of financial embezzlement, thus, the order of removal was l 1 . PETITIONER .- Bhojraj Bagaswar. 9/f rightly passed as the petitioner has unauthorizedly Wlthdrawn a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/-. On consideration of rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute that aner issue of the show cause notice alongwith the charge sheet, the departmental enquiry is pending consideration and the criminal case is also pending trial. Without waiting for the decision either in the departmental enquiry or in the criminal trial, the order of removal has been passed. It is clear that the respondent authorities have misinterpreted the circular dated 27.7.1966. Admittedly, after issue of the show cause notice and charge sheet and after registration of criminal case, the enquiry as well as trial, both are pending consideration. On bare perusal of the circular dated 27.7.1966 (Annexure P8), it is crystal clear that an employee may be removed from service if he has been found guilty either by the criminal court or in the departmental enquiry. It appears to be a case of goss violation of principles of natural justice and infringement of provisions of Article 3 1 1(2) of the Constitution of India. Looking from all angles, the order of removal from service dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) is bad in law and is accordingly quashed. However, the respondent authorities may go on with the departmental enquiry as well as criminal trial, whatever is pending consideration and thereafter, may pass appropriate orders, if so advised, in accordance with law. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. l Sd/- ‘j Satish K.Agnthmrt p t Judge 7 i a- .rf:‘