^ <" ^- •-'•3* •E^Wk.'TS'S'J^^' P.K. Kerketta, aged about 36 years, s/o Shri A. Kerketta, Occupation Service Sub-Engiaeer (Under suspeasioa) Water Resources Departiaeat, Office ofttie Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage, Water Msuiageiaent Dlvision, Rampiu', Korba (preseatiy attached to the Office of Chief Engiaeer, W.R.D. Hasdeo Basui, Bilaspur (C.Gj, R/o Qtr.No. H-1B, UTigati.on Colony, Darri, Disti. Korba (C.G). State of CrAattisgai'h, Throiigh Secretan,r, Departnient of V/ater Resources, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) Engineer ia Chief, Depaitxaeiit of Water Resoiu-ces, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engirieer, Water Resources Depaitment, Hasdeo Basin, Bilaspur,Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Execiltive Eilgiiie.er, Water Resources Departm.ent, Hasdeo Ban'age, Water Maiiageiaent Division, Ram.pur, Distt.Korba (C.G.) •fji A ^'-^ft Shri P.S. Koshy, Counsel for fhe petitioiier. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govt.Advocate, for th.e ; respondents on advajice copy. Heai'd on adiaission. The petitioner, wllo is a Sub-Eagineer (under suspensionj, has challenged fhe charge sheet dated 05.11.2007 issued to 'him by the coaipetent autbox'it*/ uiakiiig followiaj aUegations:- -^ ~^vffi 08 ^Et ^ 07 <o •1KI ^tS ^qTW l?^ TO^sra ^? tSpi,'.iff ^rf {yrpT ^rviraRT •WT Sq> ^ 1-T?m 2.075 (A 'i ^ rf?rT firf&cT 3?TH^rf S^ 3^T 1T? WTTC 'uTI^iT WWS?? ^- itt^ pt y> .^ jA&y 3 . && ^biss i ys y^S>& iln Jjfc ^L iyk£i£ya it^bj^is icAyiJE- tau o&ss 'a; itsu ^b lURiyj®y^ifati-jjfe tfcK 'SL OOS y&&i£- ^fc i8 '<*>"& ^ (^fe !;& yuiay |tlt&) 8661 Itfc&yl Mifeisus feyuy it4{t atz. s ^ ^&ik 001. "a Bfe$> JJayt yy^fa^ £| lit& SA1± Ju&l-K ^ A90'fr ftfry ^ <&&-Mti, ^Mhty i^sjin '^ ^ii- ^cy. MiyiS, A t>it(* <&& oose '& ^tfc^. ^. ilf'h fa^ ! Ityy. iM6 t*IUtf~ft. ISfe ®Ua99~0 '& Mfe bla ^. lnill3& teS. &S. M> yiUB. ^ ^y utyfeisjis &li psy.h'yie ^ Bii^ltt^ fe& yOlhWS ^+Py ^ yLtlt'J^iS fcVLU^l z-o3> b^ite iltlts, ISi 3 If; ^ us ^bts tytisffi ^. (y±) ^. (tMB) fe& (fc4N Ot "IbJS t>h InfctM 'liAifell] t^tii ^i&'ksa ^. e-ki2^i. ^> sssf. ttty bi3j^.& iti 6-hfey ^i. <t>!l uh, li^fe kyuy 'ifa '( ^) 'Z ttkl^ fe <&it Mtt I^jMtttey Mtey tiJA ^UK- a<fc& fiA 1 ^ ttgffi i^b .^ ^><^ feMiitE ^ jia^j. l>u.& Sa^ ^ .V&Mi£' fei&.& ^ti". gi hjS- lll^^-K ay^ si^ i ife&t& M&kS. At:> j»>s. uii ^ istfc 11±& iOlaliS- ^b&fi; l^ig- ^ife JJ&SL 'fcltt5i ^> l&^IJS' s?i*>n. B.sii ^feUS M!fe& fi^ i ^ igk ISl^ ^ y&h tbS»l!" layclbfiL h£> s61by && <&lkS> ^> l&^lffi M&fe &^ ixfe &^a J&^UE 9t ^ ^l&^US M&& <& 4&y ub& <yt'fn 'i&it ite<&i buyrS; ijfe |n& uk ^ ^y ^ ^ttlife hit te^j. IU5 ^ lA^lte ^WaEt. E.SZ ^b jJiA fc±^(^ 1M5 ^hllS -* iA^a<b IttSh t»lia &y"y ^ b&i& »t& iiytSfi- ii ^&s. (ti& ^. uj?>h i>ykyj& ^UK ii&6. &S t ys y^ifit un ij& PPP ^fe yuia .(^i'p &<& ISA iac& Ah s^- yfe MfiL<^te ^ ^ is^y iyy&fi. cb. ^)^4> jsia. f> SP. I&yy ^& ^ H-^t-fis Efcte^3tAi^!& ^tfe l^itUS- Ai&^jy bijK i^ & ^& j^tfe ^ ^&ti ^jh-yi ^.Lfef^p MjiJil.^j.&te M'Pfi &S 1 ittty tets !tb fe t2a<& $> ^lta srei. 'a u.S' ii&e ^> jss.^us b& l ^&'& ^<t> ^iei i&^its- ^& ^t<h feyuai' y&etej^ ^> 4^i<&i^j'& feVtUty&is yi .^a ^.b-. y lyayj^ ^ ^B. lyyiiyja i-tfc l^tijB^ .^ .^s<feS njiiys s. -/ooos 'Ss. ^ < ^9<S9'6N(S)< -~L- -3>' '%K.^'Ls'^ '^T'-n- *-..^.e^r "•^'-i''.iSfSf-'--' y- '7 a»T 'PR iprarR fS^iff | ^ST iiraflt ^ra ^n^'Fe' ^ iffSVi V. ^. 'wv^f. T{9 qipif ^ir yreM sft ^qT ufFTT •qTijT WZ]T uft ^gff •q< sp^ag' •ifSV q»^f^ uff^ s^ | ^^T i|^f^ ^ •Wi} vV^ if? dctSdKT -^ ^3t <^ fltd IR q'q^t <St vnat T<4 •C.FT'ITO %. 0.06 CTTQ' t5T <).jj*d TITfia' ^Trft I fQ ?5>R STPT^ f^fflt' ^ i'S*i^ aipi qiT^ ?ire^T vr '?Twf? <^ ?Tf^ tSWt ^ ^rgqt7T f^qT. f^ilq^T ^cftT ^ftiBSM 1^ ^ f-^T ^raT ^ 1 & i Leamed counsel for ttie petitioner ai'gues fhat factuaUy the chai-ges are not correct He also ai^ues that fhere are no speci&c charges agaitist fhe petitioner and it is oiily said ia tlie charges fliat fhe petitios.er was also indulged with the other aufhorities of tlie departinent for fhe alleged inisconduct coiainitted by fheiu. He also argues fhat fhe charges were not issued to tlie petitioiier wiftun fhe stipulated period graated ruider rule 9 ofM.P (C.G) CivU Seryices (Classi&cation, Control aiid Appeal) Rules 1966. For such chaUenge inade by the petitioner, reUaace has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court ui fhe m.atter of I have heard leamed counsel for tlie petitioner at lengtli aiid have also gone fhrough tiie docunients filed alongwith Writ pel In this case, as it appears froiu the docuiuents, the petitioner was siispended 011 14.8.2007 aiicl tlie charge sheet was issued bv the Govei-niaent to bini on 05.11.2007. Therefore, tlie charge sheet has beeil issued ia tinie smd no chatlenge can be made on fhis groiind. As far as flie groiuids pertaiuiiig to the aBegations iu fhe chai-ges are concemed fhose grounds are based on factual aspects of Uie luatter aiid that caiinot be enquired m.t.o by a writ court, which is absolutely a duty of fh.e enquiriiig autliority or the coinpetent ailthorily in ttiis regard. In fhe inatter of Upendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court lias also held vide para 6 that in tlie case of charges t'raiaed in a discipliaary iiiquiry the ttibunal or court caa niterfere only ifon flie charges frauied (read witli imputation or particulars of tlie charges, if aiiy) no iniscoaduct or otlier ttTegularity aISeged caii be said to bave been made out or the charges fi'amed are i'iii.'t ''1' ^^ A fKaof ys- .^ &. -^t W.P('SWo.6968/2007 contrary to aoy law. At fhis stage, fhe tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctaess or trufh of fhe cbarges. The tribunal caimot takeover fhe fuiictions of the disciplmary authority. The trufh or ofherwise offhe charges is a matter for the discipliriaiy aufhority to go into. Indeed, even after fhe conclusion offhe discipluiary proceediags, if the niatter conies to court or tribunal, fhey have no jurisdictioa to look into fhe trufh of fhe charges or iuto fhe correctaess of fhe finduigs recorded by fhe discipliiiajy authority or the appeUate authority as the case niay be. Admittedly, as stated above, the factual aspects of fhe niatter are iavolved in tliis case aad fhis Court cannot go iato the merits of ttie charges franied agamst fhe petitioner, at ftus stage, pardcularly with reference to fhetr correctaess ete. For the foregoiag discussions, I do not find any reason to iaterfere with the chai^e sheet served upon the petitioner, at this stage. The petition deseryes to be and is accordingly disniissed at ffae motion stage itself. j | i - ...-sd/" _-. i' Sunil Kumar Sinha J Judge