IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE BILASPUR} CHHATTISGARH w. P} No. gid /2oo3 EETITIONER //‘ gHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ) v Ye “;§:é&am®(b éaxe§mszvONnENT 3" ® / AW {5W5 KW“ '4‘" / THROUGH cxRCLE DURG. ms sUPm: ENGINEER,S E (om misz‘r VERSUS sRI D.K.SAHU T.A.,GRADE I, R/o QTR.N0.E/33, c.s.E.B. coLONy, BHILAI-3‘ DISTmURG PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 01? HE CONSTHUTxON OF INDIA H Contd. {:2 e . T @ H1Gi-I COURT OF CHEAT'HSGARH AT BILASPUR “’rk Petitie}; N0. 811 6f 2&3 PETITIONER Chhattisgarh State Eiectricity Board through its Supdt. Engineer; S.E. (0&M) Circle Durg. VERSUS RESPGIVEENE‘ : Sri ELK. Sahu TA. Gracie L Rio Qtr. N0. E/33, C.S.E.B. Colony, Emmi-3, Distt. Durg. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: iion'ble Mr. Saiish K. Agnihotx-i, J.) Present : Shri P‘S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. f ‘\/ ORAL ORDER (Passer! on this 23w day of July, 2008) 1, With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 2.. The petitioner has chaiienged the order of termination dated 27.07.1992 (Annexure P/4) before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by order dated 14.05.1993 (Annexure P/2) held that the departmental enquiry was not proper as the tindings recorded in the departmental enquiry was not based on‘eogent evidence, accordingly, the Labour Court, ailowed the . application without backwages. 3w in appeal, fried by the respondent against the denial ofbackwages, and by the petitioner against the order of reinstatement: the appellate Court i.e. Industrial Court. after having considered all the «aspects and hearing the parties, upheld the findings recorded by the Labour Court and dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged misconduct committed by the respondent has not been found proved in the departmental enquiry, on the i basis ot‘evidence. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 23. l l .2002 (Annexure P/l), both the appeals tiled by the petitioner as well as by the \ // 7, v respondent, was dismissed. Hence this petition, .\ / r”. x A . Jar- 4. it is informed by the ieamad counse'i a’ppaaring for the petitioner that the order passed by the Labour Court was compiied with immediately even during pendency Qfthe appeair Thereafter, the petitioner was considered and grantea‘ promotion to the higher post. . in view ot‘the facts, that the orders passed hy the Court below has been complied with and the respondent has thereafter been promoted to the higher past; no interference is warranted at this stage, Even otherwise, the findings recorded by the Court heiow is unexceptionable? as alieged misconduct against the respondent was not found proved on the basis of cogent evrdenee. 6, This petition is devoiri of merit, anti is accordingiy dismissed, "1'. Consequentiy, MON)? No. 708/03, applieation for grant ofinterim relief, stands disposed of. Sd/- Sahu