^<p^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionNO. 28>^0 /2003 PETITIONER ^:..' ^^ •f' <»J:;.-:^' TT^-""" * RESPONDENTS :1. ( . .-^ .•"Wii ^'J^' ...^s^ vff 2. ^s' <<s ISel ^1's o.< iA^y Dubef laaspu' .cQ Is.i4 V3&-2 03 Wes&^ .<.<s;:v 5. 6. Bhim. Sen Patel, aged 44 Years, S/o Shri Ramdhin Patel R/o Near Police line Bastar, Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Director General of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur (C.G.) Ins^ector-General of Police Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) Deputy Inspector General of Pblice, Bastar, DistaictBastar(C.G.) Superintendent of Police Bastar, District Bastar(C.G.) Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bastar, DistoictBastarfC.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A22?6/2y^OF THE CO STITU- TION OF INDIAFOR ISSUEOF AN APPROPRIATEWRIT IN THENATURE OFMANDAMUS/CERTIORARIETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE UKE NATURE ETC. XI-HC-78 a.n^T^rfq-rig; (TaiTSII^Tshlitti WWIl (h+ll<h 3's? 'ill'illrl'i), ®Tfl«'ls,l°l<')l«y ^..^f.^.o^^^ 200 341^S!14^«fc(yiI^si^dT) ^TiTWdlN'sn^T 10.10.2006 Shri Gautam Khetrapalj Shri Sushil Dube) Stete/ respondents. Arguiaents heard. Order dictated as foUowl ORAL ORDER (10 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, The petitioner, wh.o waj petition. chaBenging fhe vali^ily passed by respoiideiit No.5, puiushlnent of disnussal aft( enqujry. He has also chaUen^ by respondents No.4, 3 & 1 , Appeals filed by the petitioner.| The brief facts are thatl against fhe petitioner, he wa^ oa 23/1/1985. The petitione) order before the D.1.0., Bastaj-. on 16/3/1985 and the Second| ttte I.G., Bilaspur wasalso disniissal, the petitioner filed State Adininistrative Tribuns <tiWlc')<fl-i *)14ril'fftec^<(»l't<i< ^a.ri^Tai^ST Counsel for the petitiouer. Govt. Advocate for fhe 1Q.20Q61 a Police Constable, has ffled ttus of fhe order dated 23/ l/1985 by which, he was awarded the ;r conduGtiug a detailed doiuestic ;ed the validity of the orders passed ^hich were passed in Departmental on a doniestic enquiiy, conducted awarded punishinent of disnussal filed aa appeal against the said The D.I.G. disniissed his appeal Appeal filed by the petitioner before on 2/8/1985. After the said au Origiual AppUcatioa before the , Jabalpur vide OA No.48/1990. disiluissed XI-HC-78 3n^T?irfete (IW3TI^T*t<i+ H|t|CfTSt>*1|th TSf '<llqid<<, ®Tn'M'IS,IslOIMy ...w.e^.2..?ao.f9.: 200 3<1^1 15|tt> (yiI^ISK,^') WdTW^d'sn^T Tribtnal fuldiat ;ceptep neilher ffleti disidissed Many grounds pertaining to before the Tribuiial. The AppUcation on l7/l/l990| conducted in all faimess and| Tribuiial also held fhat the on appreciatton of evidencje Appouiting Authorily, accepte|d conteuded that ftiere was of the pnnciples of natuial ju^ It appears that th( suppressing these facts, Govenunent and the State oider on 4/8/ 1997 and rejecting his prayer for re-ap^o: the PoUce Departinent. T} eoncemed Secretaiy of the Atmexure P-1. A perusal ofthe Writ has suppressed fhe most im|p( AppUcation before the petition chaUeitgtng the order^ well as fhe doiuestic AppeU^t quashiuent of fhe saine. Th|f before fhe State Adnunistt-ati^i State ffled a retuni to ftie order of fhe Tribunal was filed TnTiUGlal '»>i<iFivi<l1-< ii*«iTffte^<Ri^;i< ^i.a'ri^Tan^r [faimess of the enquuy were raised disinissed fhe-aferesaid Original holding fhat the enquiry was Iproper procedure was foUowed. The fi4diag ofthe enquuy officerwas based n^e arid fhe Supdt of PoUce, the the said finding. The Tribunal atso any irregulanly nor any violation itice. ireafler, the petitioner; perhaps aaother appeal before fhe State povenuneat, ultimately, passed the the appeal of fhe petitioner by .p^ointuien.t to fhe post of Constable in (le aforesaid order passed by the povemment is placed on record as P^tition iiiilBortaat peftitio would show fhat the petitioner fact of fiUng of the On^inal and he has straightaway filed fhe passed by the domestic Tribunal as te Authorities aad has prayed for fact regardiag fflmg of the niatter Tribunal cauie ou record when the ition fHed by the petitiouer and the as Annexure R-l. _-— r.1.U. XI-HC-78 *11*1Wt Sb*11<h d'n< •<ii<ii<rt<i, siTfltf'is, (sitiwy ., l^jf - 2-8^ O jo3. ^•/W^ 200 3<i^i«acn.(l?^P^T) sn^TqirR-fi* (PlTsn^Tstiiro ?RITWdfeT3n^T 3 qillFd'fl-f 1)11lTfffe^t<RlWI< ^sri^trgn^T fabts oftbe Hith strative Leat-ued couiLsel for the) haying fauowledge about fiU4; Adnunistrative Tribunal by fh{ factiim. of suppression of faj: petition uuder Article 227 the Division Bench of fhe order by the State Adinuustra|fc inatter, fhis petition inay be petitioner may be given an petition before the Division B^ the validity of the order No.48/1990 on 17/1/1996. On the conteary, leamei^ prayer. His suhniission is High Court with clean hands facts. He also subnuts that Tribunal was passed as petitioner is perinitted to Uberty granted in his condoniag the delay ia favou| Writ Petition, which fhe petiti<|>i many suppressious inade by| dismissal of fhe petitiou. In. the facts and this Court, I deeia it propeij petitioner tp appioach to fhe petitioner subxnits fhat he was not U4g of the inatter before the State petitioaer. He submits that if the ia ignored, fhen, on inerits a Constitution of India would lie to Court, even after passing of the Tribunal and in. fhis view of the tiennitted to be withdrawn and flie o^portunily to file a duly constituted ;nch of the High Coui-t challenging ^assed by the Tribunal in O.A. counsel for the State opposes this the petitioner has aot visited the ^nd he has suppressed the niaterial order of (he State Aduuiustaative as iu the year 1990 and if ttie fhis petition wifh the aforesaid >tir, it shaU. amount to mipliedly of the petitioner for fiUng a fresh 4ner does not deserve oa tlie face of hiia. He prays for straightaway thfat ttie baelc wifhflraw favotu- circuin^tances ofthis case, ia fhe opinion of to award one opportunity to fhe iroper forum. for agitatmg fhe order 'T.O. XI-HC-78 *1T*R'(Ta»*1le»> 35^ •<(i<ii(n<<, ®t(l<-i'is,ItCTK-iy .^X.^.^^1^.^ ^200 sn^TwR-fi.* gw an^?T SBIW shyna ^r tf <^ .sf'\^ ^ 3<t^i'i lacn (>jcit^isi<<iT) 8?(IRITHfeT3TI^T -^. passed by the Slate Admin^ cpnsequence, this petition is] liberty to the petitioner to fili| c(iraf(n<H4 tTra^ft ^f fe11^' <r^^i< ^?3|^IT3I^RT strative Tribunal agam.st 1iim. In permitted to be withdrawn with a a duly coustituted petition against fhe order passed by fhe S^ate Administrative Tribunal ia OA No.48/1990. It is made clear tfaat b petitioner in chaUenging the o| passiag this order, fhis Court has not condoned {he delay, wl|iich niay coiae iu the way of the rderdated 17/1/1990. Needless to Say tKat Ijtie question. of delay wouU be the subject matter ofthat Court, by fhe petitioner and fhe ordejr passed by fhat Court would govem fhe decision offhe said poiat. With these observationd the aforesaid libei-ty granted uji favour of fhe petitio ivhich will entertain the petition filed , tUe petition stands wifhdrawn wifh Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge P.T.O.