(S) *''" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. .'5~^T^ /2005 Petitioner^g^ •^.^^^^- ^^v®:^ da\.ed--' Respondents ftfTt r' -"^&1J ^ ^^ d Shiv Kumar Mishra, Son of Shri Badri Prasad Mishra, Aged about 62 years, Technical Assistant (Retired), Resident of Tikrapara, Raipur, Town, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Principa], Government Engineering College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Shri Avinash Sindur, Instructor Workshop, Government Engineering College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA t-l-^-l ^^ 1 n n ^ir-.T-.i ir- nI—^|T·l/^^^m. .,it"'::'w ^"^.^-%, f & "ii '%. S! VSsyis&.. i |1: '-S'SssSii & !i> i |l!i^$B-!5«S"i y HIGH COURT OF CHHA'niSGARH AT BILASPUR PET'mONER WRIT PET1TION No. 5572 of2005 Shiv Kumar Mislira. VERSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPOx\fDENTS WRIT PETn'lON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LNDIA ?ji5* iiosi ssie ssis'1 Shri Sati Agi i.J. Present: Shri Anupain Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri KashifShakeel, Advocate fortfae respondent No. 3. ORDER (ORAL') (Passed on 30a> day of June, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 to initiate departmentai enquir>' against the respondent No. 3, fn.+l The facts, in nutsheil, as projected by the petitionei- are lliat on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, a criminal case was registered agamst the respondent No. 3 who was working as Instructor in Govemment Engineering College, Raipur, m the Court of Additional Judiciai Magistrate First Class, Raipur, bems. Crimmal Case No. 2841/2002, which resulted into convietion ofthe respondent No. 3, vide order dated 21.08.2004 (Annexure P/l) under the provisions of section 500 ofthe Indian Penal Code, and imposition offine ofRs. 1000/- and m default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur being Crimuial Appeal No. 275/2004. Tne 1 Additiona! Sessions Judge, Raipur, dismissed the appeal ofthe respondent No. 3 vide order dated 18.03.2005 (Annexure P/2) upholding the conviction and imposition of sentence, as afbrestated. Thereagainst, the respondent No. 3 preferred a revision being Criniinal Revision No. 154/2005 before this Court. Tliis Court, while admitting the revision stayed the conviction and suspended the sentence as imposed'&y the courts below. ''^. -^. ?\ - ;'ff>!-.. l^;-.. %i» 1 "•'.-^ ^ <::y e>. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subn'iits that though the criminal case is still pending before this Court, however, disciplinary enquiry may be mitiated against fhe respondent No. 3 for the alleged charges made in the complaint. Thus, the present petition seeks a direction to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent No. 3, forthwith. The petitioner, being a complainant has a right to make a complaint if there are certain criminal act done by a person. The Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance ofthe complaint and convicted the respondent No. 3 aiid imposed a punislnnent as aforestated. Thereafter, the same vvas maintamed by the 1 Additional Sessioas Jiidge also. It is beyond ones comprehension asto how tlris petition is maintainable at tlie instance ofa complainaat seeking a direction to the respondent No. 1 and 2 so asto mitiate depai"tmental enquin' agaiiist a person who has been convicted fbr certam charges. It is for the empioyer to iook into the matter and the nature of oftence and misconduct, if has been committed by the employee. The employer has to examine conduct of its employee for initiating departmental aiquiry, if so advised. The Court cannot issue a direction to initiate a departmental enquiry at fhe instance of the petitioner. It is fiirther brought to the notice ofthis court that Ifae respondent No. 2 Govetnment Engineering College, Raipur has been taken over by the National Institute ofTechnology (for short 'NIT') in the year 2005 aiid fhe petitioner has not impleaded NIT as party-respondent as the respondent No. 3 is no longer the employee ofGovenuneiit Engineering College, Raipur. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed on account ofnon-joinder ofnecessaiy party also. Looking from all angles aiid for the reasons stated heremabove, the petition deserves to be and is dismissed. " ~