^ti:^;.^"1 •-{: p I;?--,1-,P'L" [<h 'z IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition NoT^ PETITIONEE 5/ 2005 .^ .v7<^ •' ^i-a* i}'.-'! ^^ o^ .^ Naresh Kuxnar Chaiidrafear, S/o Late Shri T. E. Chandrakar, Agsd about 46 ysars, Workiug as Deputy Director, Department ofViBage Industries (Handloom) R/o 35/ 13, Kanchauganga, Fhase-II, Rohaipuram, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDEWTS 1. State of CMiattisgarh, Tbrough the Secretary, Departm.ent of Village Industries, Mautralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.j. The Director, ViUage Industriea (Handlooui), Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.J. Shri Narayau Prasad Dewangan, S/ o Not known, aged about 55 years, Workiag as Deputy Du-ector, Department ofViUage Industries (Handloom), R/ o Block- A, M.I.G. 203/204, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UlgDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP IjHDIA POR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CEKTIORARI ETC.OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TQ DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. Details offhe petition. "ss^ss-sss-'.a- ^? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR AF<^ fRITPETITiON N0.4585 OF 200:c PETiTIONER 1 IUI RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisaarh & Others (V'/rit Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of Indsa) I'Die ynn Pressnt:- Shri Prashant Jaiswai, Sr. Advocate with Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. > • ' . •. Shri S.K. Beriwai, Advocate for the respondent No.3, (Passecj Qn this 25'" day of February, 2010) Sy this petition, the petitiQner seeks to challenge the order aated 3-9-2005 (Annexure- P/3) and prays for quashment of the said order whereby the respondent No.3 herein has been the charses leveled asainst him. The fu? directed to •promote him on the post of Joint Dsrector in the 2. Thi enquiry or ultimate exoneration of ot departmental enquiry is inftiated by the discipljnary authority against fhe deiinquent empioyee and ifthe discjpiinary authority hgs exaneratec! the delinquent employee, the other employee cannot be permftSed .tp argue that the exoneration of the said 3. Gowri ~. is betvv'ei ent employee, no other empioyee In fact, the departmental the employer and the del can question the leveiing of charges or exoneration therea The daim of the petitioner i.3 is f jiitv and on the ground that If the respondent some departmental action is taken against him, the post would be vacant and availabte for him for promotion, the contention of the petitiGner is frivolous. The ioner has to star »s!sttiat ot empioyee, who is comina in hisway, should be punished/so e petition Is misconceived and meritless. 4. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ oet'rtion fails and is h 'here shall be no order asto cosis. Sd/- sat"hK. Agna^. Judge