^-F/- ^/~- /oo^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. ^^1 /2006 PETITIONER 0>? ^j^> ^>:1 "^- ..--'^v''> ..<^y ^^" ,*' <><'•• .A.-' Shri M.L. Sahu, S/0. Late Ramdhan Sahu, aged about - 60 years, Asstt. Grade II, Clerk, (Retired) P.W.D. Champa, Division Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) R/0. Near B.D. Mahant Primary School New Chandamyapara Janjgir, Distt. JanjgirChampa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS G.^'^^s^ State of Chhatdsgarh,' Through - The Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Superintending Engineer,'. F'ublice, Works Department Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, • Public Works Department Division Pendra, Pendra District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Division Champa, Champa Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WMT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 tffwn 9i*ii <*> 3^'-^rai?w, ®Tn+)'i<»,facii'My< ^^.wpt^..^<sr^ 200^ sii^i 4si«(qqi^g^Er) 3TI^T?iTR-li+ .cTOT SIT^T ihKicb ^. r •••^ L' wmm^rf?(T3Ti^T 10-08.200S Shri P.K. Patel, counsell Shri Satish Gupta, respondents, on advance copy). Heard. By the instant petitit>n correctness and propriety of[ issued by the Superintendii|ig Bilaspur Division, Biiaspur, wh^ that the recovery to the tune| petitioner on account of the fa<; the Store of Pendra Road of by ths petitioner, 62 cement drums of Tar and other itemfe petitioner was not able to Perusal of the record when the petitioner was h^! explanation of the petitioner v)' the material to the tune of R; petitioner was asked to explai) petitioner submitted his expla^is explanation submitted by the issued to the petitioner on 27-: submitted by the petitioner cause notice which is evident the reply submitted by the |for the petitioner. peputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ accoi|jnt ^rafepftr wiiyff ff fet^ ^RSPC ^Tsrf^irgn^r it>n, the petitioner has chalienged the the order Annexure-P/1 dated 5-5-2006 Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, 'reby the Superintending Engineer has held of Rs.2,61,241/- is to be made from the (;t that when the petitioner was in-charge of PjiA/D, at the time of handing over the charge [bags were found missing. SirnHariy, 261 were also found missjng for which the for, which the petitioner is disputing. fehows that in the first instance on 3-4-91 ^lding the charge of Store Keeper, an I'as sought by the Executive Engineer that j.3,05,566.70/- wasfound missing and the i)i within 15 days. !n pursuance of that, the la^iation on 26-2-91. After considering the Isetitioner, again show cause notices were ^-92 and 16-'!0-92. Reply ofthe same was 12 years of the issuance of the show 1-om the impugned order. After considering Btjoner, the Superintending Engineer reached after petit|oner, P.T.O. /'-^.••"' >^?'i-/ XI-HC-78 gn^rqirR-<i<ti Wl^Tsbtfi* 'u f". Ban/e ,^ 3'EST "!<l<|lc1<l, ^Tfltl'lio, Ridiuy *11*1MI ^WI^ W[ 200 3Ti^?r ira^r ('pf^p^sr) ronw ?ri?(T sn^r ^' bla 21,61 order reMea to the conclusion that for 62 from other items the petitioner| he held that the petitioner is Department to the tune of Rs.: Learned counsel for conducting the enquiry, the Perusa! of the order was asked to give explanation show cause notice was issuedl reply of the same. After cons stili the petitioner dispute's invoived in this case which documents as also the orai jurisdiction. However, if the impugned order, then the prori thecivil Court for redressal of !) be conducted. Since disputed facts arf not maintainabte, same is dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P.[ the r^qulres evitience, *i'!<F!'i<il1^ tiiti<-iT^'tec3'<Ri«i< ^3lf^IT3TI^?T |ags of cement and 261 drums of Tar apart 1 was not able to account for and ultimateiy responsibie for the loss caused to the l,241/-. the petitioner submitted that without |er has been passed. (eals that in the first instance, the peSitioner land same was considered and thereafter, a |to him. The petitioner took 12 years to file (idering same, order has been passed and order. Therefore, disputed facts are a detailed enquiry by tendering the i, which cannot be gone into in the wrlt Ipetitioner has any grievance against the |er remedy for the petitioner is to approach ^is grievances where a detaited enquiry can ^ involved in this case, this writ petition is |able to be dismissed and it is hereby [Mo.3131/2006 stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C.Shadoo Judge P.T.O. \: •/!^....-" 1^'-';'/