5-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BILASPUR W.P. (S) No.7485 12007 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS G.P.Madhukar aged about 40 years, s/o Govardhan Prasad Madhukar, R/o Kunkuri, Tapkara Road, Opposite Aara Miil, Room No. 6 Post Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jaspur(CG) Versus 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2 The Director of Anusuchit Janjati and Anusuchit Jati Vikas Raipur(CG) 3 The Collector, Jashpur 4 The Assistant Commissioner Adivasi Vikas Jashpur(CG) 5 B.K. Rajput, Assistant Commissioner Adivasi Vikas Jashpur(CG) WRIT PETinON UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF Appearance: Shri Akhiiesh Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State on adyance copy. ORAL ORDER (19.12.2007) SUNILKUMARSJNHA.J. Heard on admission. This petition has been directed for quashment of the suspension order dated 28.6.2007(Annexure P-7) as atso the departmental snquiry pending against the petitioner. The brief facts, as stated in the suspension order, are that on a particular day, the petitioner went to the office or the concerned Assistant Commissioner and tried to give him bribe of Rs.5,000/-. How the bribe has been given to the petitioner is mentioned in the suspension order itself. When the enveiope containing the bribe wasopened, it came to the notice of the concerned authority and he took action against the petitioner and ultimately, the petitioner was suspended and the departmental enquiry was initiated. •\ ,_._^_........ ^VP(S)No.7485/2007 Sunita Learned counse! for the petltioner argues/faise allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and he has been faiseiy implicated in the departmental proceedings. have heard tearned counsel for the petitioner at length and have aiso perused the record filed along wlth the writ petition. In the matter of UMon^Qflndiaandolheisys.UjKndisSmgh {1994} 3 S.C.C. 3S7, the Apex Court held vide para 6 that in the case of charges framed In a disciplinary inquiry, the tribunat or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particuiars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alieged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribuna! has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conciusion of the disciplinary proceedings, ifthe matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no iurisdiction to look into the truth ofthe charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appeliate authority as the case may be. . Needless to say that in this case atso, the factual aspects raised by the petitioner cannot be gone into by a writ court. On the basis of disputs raised pertaining to the factual aspect, neither the suspension order nor the departmentai enquiry contempiated/initiated against the petinoner can bequashed. i do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition filed for quashment ofthe suspension order as also the departmental enquiry. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge