^^ /^^ BEFORE THE H16M COURT OF CHHATT1S&ARM AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. N0.2S5^-/2005 fS.B.) : y^.P Rathore, aged about 50 years, S/o -Rupnarayan RathoTe.R/o LaxmtpuF, P. O. & DisU. Ratgarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESRONDENTS ^^y ^^•" ^.s^ y State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, UaRtrataya, &.K.S. Bhawan, Po & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Tbe Collector, Raigarh, P. O. & Disft. Raigarh (C.G.} Sliri. S.K. Dewangan, Deputy Colle®torcum-Enqu^ry Gfficer, Po. & Distt. RatgaFh {C.G.) PETITiQN UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OF THE CONSTirUTION - FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTlORARt ANB WANDAMUS AND ANY OTHER WK / DlRECTtON / ORDER. ]<:;? d-oq'-<<i'<tirt<t,wtfk<''tt»;&ei'tiy^ *ti*»«i»^r^ .^..fs..^Q.'ii-&^S' %F^2@0 3n?F?Tqg^1('pfg^) an^CTcRfft-if* awan^ffg^w 08.07.2TO5 Mr. B.R. Ghosh, leamedc( Mr. ArunSao, leamed & State of Chhattisgarh / responden^ Heard. The petltloner was worWns one of the Member ofthe Comnl eligible persons under Rajiv Gan< of land was allotted to one departmental inquiry was initiated| sheet was issuedto the petitioner| itinsel for the petitioner. Govemment Advocate for the <s 1 &2. as Revenue Inspector. He was fiittee for allotmentof land to the fhi Ashray Yojna, 2002. A piece Rajhesh Kuroar Rathore. A [against the petitioner and charge |on the following charges: (1) You were member of t| Gandhi Ashray Yojni member of the said Shri Raiesh Kumar govemment instructions| of land in Revenue Ca? the Court ofSub Divisiof (2) You have recommend^d Punll Lal s/6. Malarairl facts of the nature No.153/8-121/02-03 Divisional OfRcsr, Raigs|i Subsequently, a departm^ntal above stated charges. The petjti <pi<ifo<Iliii*ic)l'^'to:fl''(Ri+di'< ^3I^T31I^?T tfie Suroey Committee of the Rajiv 2002 and in the capacity of Cotnmittee.you have allotted land to pathore itlegalty when as per he was not ellgible for allotment ^eNo. 159/8-121/02-03 pending in lal Officer, Raigarh. for allotment of a land to Shri Satnami illegally by suppressing |of the, land in Revenue Case ttendjng in the Court of Sub rh. enquiry was initiated on the oner has filed this petition under sH/f-S/2005-20,000 ;:a i.ri 1'.' i:. w I. i.T. !.; V;, >3w| ^141(44, t»TTkl<t<s,RlW(i3< HJNrill^m^ . ;^.^B.ASS;^.L--5^F(J200'S- 3n^Ttra^(ti<»(gq<s) 30l?TTOR'jl* aaiTSll^nrt'li* <, ;5arma gTgi8R^I%a3I1^?T —2_- Article 226 of the Constitution of seeking a direction to change the After having heard learned perusal of the records, lam ofthe departmental enquiry has been interfere with the charges when the adducing evidence. The Suprem< Othws vs. Apt Singh reported in it is not proper to exercjse writ juri; stage of charge sheet when the adducing evidence. : In view of the foregoing, the Consequently, I.A.No.5619 o 2005 stand disposed of. No orderasto costs. llidia <i>l'tj[!rt4l'i«liltriT^'fecQ•(Rit^it ^3]^T3I1$?I ' ; 1: ' challenging the enquiryand Er(quiry Officer. |counsel for the parties an<l on [view that atthis stage when the ihttiated, this Court should 'not [charges are yet to be pro»edby Court in State of Ptmjsto & (J1997) 11 SO? 368 hashetd that ^dictiofi of the High Court at the clfarges are yet to be pr&ved by ffetition is dismissed. '2005 and M.(W).P.No. 2369 of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn -- Judge ow .SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^. t;. r.. i-