g ,L @oef@ $§MH£ BSEMM. \1 i ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHATTILSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (g/)° N ?i45 20093.3. / PETITIONER \ wgv Sonu Ram Jangde ‘ S/o Shri Chait Ram Jangde Age about 30 years, R/o Village Dhardehi (Chiroti) P.O. Bhavli Via Bilha,P.S. Pathri, .............. DisttBilaspur (C.G.) . ‘ ¢ hi" Y $9 VERSUS RESPONDENTS .1. state of Chhattisgarh ‘ Through: Police Department ? . D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commander, 2 nd Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force Bilaspur Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 Enquiry officer 2 nd Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force Bilaspur Distt.— Bilaspur (C.G.) The Add. Superintendent of Police (Appellate Authority) D1v1s10n Bllaspur (C G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTILCLE 227 /0F THE CONS I‘ILTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRITE ORDER IN NATURE OF ‘ 7 MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION IN THE LINK NATURE ETC. V g? S : v v 9 s’a W, Wm, W W‘ m‘ .. wmvivrwwgtozzo mw (ma) mmm mm§f§€tm *Wm SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra M :han Shrivastava, J. 10.8.2010 Shri Somkant Verma, co Jnsel for tha petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State] mspondents. With the consent of leaJ‘ned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The foremost objection with regard to maintainability of the petition is that there exists en efficacious and alternative statutory remedy of filing departmental appeal against the impugned order dated 28. 1 1.2008, by which the penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been nied assailing the impu proper enquiry was not held d order of penalty on the ground that the petitioner was not al’forded due and proper opportunity of d ending himself. The other ground on which the learned counsel f the petitioner seeks to justify tiling of this petition without availing ernative remedy is that as he suffered from iliness and was falsely licated in criminal case, he could not approach the authority and penalty has been imposed in ex—parte enquiry. From the impugned 0rd r, it is reflected that the enquiry has been held eX-parte by recor that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. On the basis of e evidence collected during the course e d o t ’ p d‘ XI—HC-7 8 WWW mmm mm (We) WWW .. 2K WW§1§$W asaimm of enquiry and the enquiry repozt, charges hava been found proved and penalty has been infHcted. From the pleadings of the panties, it appears that Whether or not the petitioner was given proper notice of the departmental enquiiy proceedings, itself, is a. seriouply disputed fact. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, as the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into the writ pet tion. Accordingly, the petitione; is granted liberty to file departmental appeal against the impugned order of punishment and take all such ground as may be available to aim to assail the order of punishment dated 28. 11.2008. On such appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed. Sci/7 Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Eta W, Wm, WEI Wm “m