m /^ A ^ ^{G^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR. W.P.NO. ^-S3^ /2003 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ••• ^y. .^%--"' .""ir"^-&°^ M.R. Sonwani, son OfLate S.R. Sonwani, aged about 50 years, Head / Master, Middle School Parvi Block Bhanupratappur Distt. Kanker (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Caste and Minorities Communities Welfare Department, Mantralay D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. Collector Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG) <•• ..^y •^^ ^' 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development and Enquiry Officer, Kanker District (Chhattisgarh) 4. Assistant Project Officer, Tribal Development Project Kanker (Chhattisgarh). 5. Block Education Officer, Adiwashi Vikas Khand Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (Chhattisgarh). APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLES 22^/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^^L - _^A_4, _ ^Thepetitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:- T SD XI-HC-22 3TT^?T^RT 'f^iw ^nt^T "^RW^ritn '3"ST ';^FTR17T, '^^Tre, t^TRTy 3fli^T t^RF V3.^. l^o, 2^S2^ ^003 •^l 200 ^nw^n ^HI^ 'W^T' W^T ^ff^ ^rftn 01/09/2003:- Heard Smt. Fouzia AAirza coilnsel Praveen Das, Panel Lawyer, for th^ copy. By this petition filed Constitution of India the petiti (Annexures-P/4 &. P/5) dated the petitioner was suspended and The case of the petitioner Master, Middle Schoo! Parvi BlockJ and he was placed und©r suspens) dated 13/05/2002 on the ground Jagdish Kumar Nag, Assistant Tea^ Purvi wS^ereas he was absent frorrl August 2000 to October 2001. preliminary enquiry throu9h the his report to the Cotlector, Kank^^ flnding that Jagdish Kumar Nag for a period of one year and yet conspiracy in which Jagdish kumar herein, Biock Education Officer, under Articles 226/227 of the ^etitio|ier has challenged the orders 13/051/2002 and 07/06/2002 by which ch|irge-sheet was issued to him. (Is Sb<|3 wcis <sbl^I<n4ll 'ITPMf ^ fe^ if^l^K '^^rf^TH^n^T for the petitioner and Shri State/respondents on advance that he was working as Head Bhanupratappur, District Kanker |on by the Collector yide order |?f preparing the pay bill of Shri x^her PrimGry Sovernment School/ his duties for the period from The Collector got conducted ^ Bhanupratappur who submitted in which he has recorded his /4s continuously absent from duty Ifls pay WGS drawn as a result of |/ M.R. Sonwani - the petitioner ^ianupratappur, J.L, Mandavi and ^jiis i hpa^, F XI-HC-22 -75? '?qFIT^PT, ^ftWTS, fa<ni^'i< 3Tli^T tT^F ^WWl ^hW^h •M 200 ^R^I' ^3?^^^'^I 'f^'^^^T 5b^ict> ^rfia 3n^T^<H^RTrfN -' Si^ Gram Panchayat Sarpanch nameiy 6o\ jointly, The treasury fdEed to tak^ Kanker has decided to order enquir^ not initiate disciplinary action again^" JL. AAandavi, Block Education Offic4 him. The charge-sheet was issued ^ and the petitioner submitted his wr| in which the petitioner had men' Collector is discriminatory inasmuch against the Biock Educatlon Officer disbursed the same. The petitioner under the instructions of the Biock sign the said pay bil! or any other p^ order to iilegally protect the Block reply and appointed enquiry officer Commissiorser, Tribai Development ar Project Administrator, Kanker* Then for quashing the impugned orders I have heard the fearned coun^ The only submi'ssion of th.e !€< is that GS per the enquiry rep chl^id41v1 W^f ^ fe^t iPsi^K ^3lP?TO3TI^T (u! Ram Netam were found guilty ony objection. The Collector, against the petitioner and did the main guilt^ person nameiy for the reasons best known to the petitioner on 07/06/2002 Itten statement on 23/07/2002 lioned that the order of the [as no action has been initiated who had passed the pay bill oind had only prepared the pay bill Iducation Officer but he did not Eyen then the Collector in [Education Officer did not give Shri Srikant bubey Assistant td Shri P.K. Choubey/Assistant ^fore/ the petitioner has prayed ihexures-P/4 & P/5). p^per (An|iexures- l" sl appearing for the petitioner* 'ned counsef for the petitioner rt submitted by the SDO, ~ [Tft^'?fe^ ^y XI-HC-22 -ST^T^T 'f^t^'^TL^r '^RW^fi'cT ^sf ^w^rf, vw€ws}^, M^ni^y 3ff^T '<75T^ ^i^€i1S ^^|€t»"t"t*"<T"*'<'""**"*"*'*'<'*"WS^ 20° •N^ST' ^^ i^TW "^fN -^>- BhanupratGppur apart from the| Officerond the Sarpanch of the v^i making the payment to Jagdish Ki|imar known to the Coliector why the p^titioner known to the petstioner and this is petitioner. It is not'%-disput©c[thff}-th^ the petitioner who in tftrn had sub| yet to be compieted. The petiti^ enquiry proceedings» The evidenc roie of the petitioner and the Blo^ of/ the SDO is based on the p| completion of the enquiry the fin<| evsdence adduced by the departir| the petitioner. Therefore/ at completed after recording the e^ who was responsible and up to whcj Jagdish Kumar Nag, In view of the aboye/ I do s|i petition, However, learned CQuns^l since the year 2002 the enquiry^ '^FferfrT 'HP=?^Tf"? fe^ iFsi^K ^N^R3?i^r petitioner the Bfock Education IIage Panchayat were also party in Nag, For then reasons best has been single out, is not a discriminatory treatment to the charge-sheet has been served on jnitted the reply and the enquiry is i^er had raised his defence in the :^ is yet to be recorded about the |:k Education Officer. The finding 1'eliminary enquiry only and after |ing can be recorded based on the jent and the evidence adducecl by j'his stage unless the enquiry is idence, rt is difficult to say that |t extent in snaking the poyment to lot find ahy substance in this writ for the petitioner submits that is pending and the same is not [^^ &^^wSw»»£auSt T XI-HC-22 'STI^T'^T 'f^iW^TT^T '^RN'^rfi1cT -^^ ^qi^M<M, 's'^mr^, fa<ni^y wwn^w^ 3ff^T ^^ _.....^^... '^"200 •%^ST" 3?I^T'^RTT^R'^Rli^T '^ proceeding, In the circumstances,| expedite the enquiry ond submit hi^ With the above observationj the petition is disposed of, Parties are entitied for certjfied copy of this order. <t»s^i<n41TiTSP:^ff^ feTst <f^t^i< '^^TPHH 371^1 the Enquiry Officer is directed to report as eariy as possible. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge