HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRl RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR SSNHA, J. r \\^ Appellant (Petitioner) ResDondents Writ Appeal No.334 of 2009 Victor Ekka, S/o Shri G Ekka, Aged about 53 years, WorKing as Deputy Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, R/o Pandit RavishanRar Shukia University Campus, Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Through its Registrar, Amanaka, G E Road, Raipur (CG) 2 State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretar/, Department of Higher Education, Mantraiaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3 Shri Laxman Chatuurvedi, Ex-Vice ChancelSor of Pandit Ravlshankar Shukla University, Raipur & Presently Vlce ChanceSlor of the CentraS Universlty, Koni, Bilaspur (CG) 4 Dr (Smt.) Jndu Anant, Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shu.kla University, Raipur (CG) 5 Shri LD Deoras, Ex-Additional DJstrict Judge, Enquiry Officer, Through the Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Unjversity, Raipur (CG) 6 Shri Aiekh Ram Sahu, Lecturer and Presenting Officer, Through the Reglstrar, Pandit Ravsshankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG) Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court {Apiseai to Division Bench) Act 2006 Present : Shri PS Koshy and Shri Vivek Verma, counsel for the appei'iant. v\^ Shri PK Verma, Senior Counsel with Shri Raghavendra Verma, counsei for respondents No.1,4&6. Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No.2. Judament (20th January, 2010) The foilowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant Victor Ekka has filed this writ appeal against the Impugned order dated 23.06.2009 passed in WP(S) No.2682 of 2009. 3) The appellant / petitioner filed the writ petition for the foilowing reliefs: "a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the tmpugned orders. b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction (s) to the authorities quashing the impugned orders, dt.6/3/2009 Annexure - P/1 coiiy whereby the enquiry officer and the presenting officer have been appointed. Further to quash the impugned order, dt.24/4/2009 Annexure - P/2 by which the objection has been rejected. c. May kindly be pleased to allow the consequential benefits of service etc. d. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper. e. Cost of petition may kindly be ailowed." .^^^ ..-.:i ^^^ S 1 '%^-/./ "/^y"^^ "-•^^^^" \\^ 4) The petitioner, thus was mainly seeking quashing of the orders dated 06.03.2009, whereby respondent No.5 Shri LD Deoras, a retired Additional District Judge was appointed as Enqujry Officer in the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitjoner and respondent No.6 Shri Alekh Ram Sahu, a lecturer in Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University was appointed as presenting Officer. 5) The iearned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner did not find any ground for interference at this stage of the departmental enquiry, and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2009. 6) Shri PS koshy, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that respondent No.5 Shri LD Deoras, a retired Additional District Judge could not have been appointed as Enquiry Officer by the University in the departmental enquiry against the appellant/ petitioner, as the Officer of the appeilant's / pet'rtioner's department aione could have been appointed as EnquSry Officer. Learned counsel further submitted that the University has erred in appointing the Enquiry Offlcer without considering the appellant's reply to the charge-sheet. 7) Shri PK Verma, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1, 4 & 6 supported the act of the University In appointlng respondent No.5 Shri LD Deoras, a retired Additional District Judge as Enquiry Officer in the departmentaJ enquiry agajnst the appeilant on the ground that, since the subject matter of the departmental 4^'.^-;a "'^ "^ '"i. 1 ^^:'""' ,.^ v^ enquiry against the appellant / petitioner included the petitioner's misconduct against the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the University, there was no other officer higher in rank to the appellant / petitioner, who was working as Deputy Registrar in the University, who could have been appointed as Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner cannot have any personal grievance against respondent No.5 Shri LD Deoras, a retired Additionai District Judge. 8) Shri PS Koshy, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner could not point out any provision of iaw which prohibits appolntment of a retired Judicial Officer as Enquiry Officer in a departmental enqujry. 9) The petitioner, rather should welcome the appointment of a retired Judicial Officer as Enquiry Officer, as a Judicial Offlcer wouid always have a judicious approach and an open mind. 10) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Singie Judge, whereby appellant's writ petition challenging the appointment of the Enquiry Offlcer and the Presenting Officer has been dismissed. 11) The intra Court appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Suiul KumarSinha Judge patima