^» ^ ' ^i"g?e Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. <f? / 6 9 /2011 PETCTCONER D. Chaoudhry, S/o. S.R.Chaudhary, .-•:<"?)^ A9ed about 37 years' )..V-^"VA"^"'.... Constable, Force No. S ..^-i'l^""".....-""*" C.I.S.P. 3rd Reserve '$%?"" '^••••^^ RESPONDENTS /^ ^/ ^\% i;'^.?^i£i • }. ^_v^\^r^ 993580060, Battalion, Utai, Bhilai, bistrict burg (C.G.). i VERSUS 1. ^ Union of India/ Through the Secretary/ Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. ^" 2. The Director G&nera\, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, 13 C.Q.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 3. ^ The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, (C.I.S.F.) R.T.C. Utai. Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4. <f t)eputy Inspector General (WZ) HQRS - Central Industrial Security Force, Mumbai 74. WRIT PETETEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^\ 'T^T ^WW^, ^tl1'(-)^<o', [®!<nwy.< ^^.....M.£^...21L^llL^^^ ^S^dl sibNlck * ^^ "" - "'y'^ 200 3TT^T TT?W ( ^i^^) 'sn^ ^FT f<°ii°b Tf^IT 37T^?T^RN)' 'F^TW^na^r ^ ISB : Hoa'bl^ Shri Manindra WEohas& Shrivastava, J»1 prosec^ition 22.6.2011 Shri Arvind Kumar Dubel Shri Vivek SIirivastava, c Heard on admissiou. This petition has been departm.ental enquinr initiated) Leamed counsel for the| charges, departmental enquin7) the said enquny, whatever o| beeu produced by the proved by any stretch of ima| officer has submitted enquirj that chargesare proved, Lean that said enquiry report has Authority and a notice has b^ his defence in. the~ Mght of couusel for the petitioner, the is goiag to remove the petitioi are proved against the petitior^ Memo dated 9.6.2011 (^ of enquiry report, tlie au opiBiou to accept the afforded opportuiiity to Discipli^iaty euaulirv ^l^^ll ^ll^crfll ^f 'fe<^ ^R$R '^3;TftWW^T ^, counsel for fhe petitioner, ^unsel for the respondents. jfiled by the petitioner for quashiag {against the petitioner, petitioner submitted that on certaui [ was opeued agaiast the petitioner. In l^al and documentary evideuce have c|ition, charges canuot be said to be ^ination, but, even then, the enquiry report per^ersely recordio.g finding |ied couusel for fhe petitioner submits [been cousidered by fhe Disciptiuary ^en issued to fhe petitioner to submit ^nquiry report. According to learned pisciptinary Authority /Commandaut, ler froni service, whereas, no charges er. ^nuexure P-1) shows that after receipt Aufhority has tentatively formed 'uqu|iiy report and the petitioner lia-s beeu sul;)j2iit his defencc iu fhe tlght of the 'y^^^^'-&-"^"\ f-'- •^y J ; % .............- iT' / V./ "^•^^•y XI-HG-78 ^o -s^r T^i^icn<4, ^til-H^Ko', [si<ni-(-i^< *11*<cil ^w^ ^200 3TT^T TT^F ( ^Glij<sl<^T) ^Ti^T ^rf^ri^ ^^ ^TT^T^FRT^)" ^<TTW ^ft^ 3:TT^T —z- "ay It' decisjon eviddnce enquin^ report. This clearly has not taken any fiaal oral and docuinentary enquiry, prove tiie charges petitioner, are matter for Aufhority at the tlrst instanc^ fhose factual aspects upon as^ evidence on record. There is Disciplinary Authority is ac vengeance against fhe petitioi made by the petitioner agains circumstances, I am not incliti|c It would be open fo^ plea/defence as are available in the light of fhe enquiry 9.6.2011 (Aimexure P-1). In order of the Disciplinary petitiouer would be at libertjy iacluding the remedy the law. With the aforesaid 6\ disposed of. cM4(F<n<flTi *ii^<rif ^f f^^t <F»i-^i< '^3TfW37?^r spiows that fhe Disciplinaiy Authority in the matter. Whefher or not fhe coUected during thc course of of misconduct alleged again.st the ^onsideration by fhe Departmental and not for fhis Court to dwell into ^essment of the oral and documentary u^fhuig in fhe petition to show that the Itrag with auy personal malice or |ier. No such allegation has even been ^t the Disciplinary Authority. In these ?d to entertain tms petitiou. the petitioiier to raise aU such (:o him while submittiag his comments jreport, in response to memo dated c^.se, fhe petitioner is aggneved by any tljiority, it goes wifhout sayiiig that the to take recourse to the remedies, available to him uuder c&se, Autljiority, of depai|tmental appeal bservations, fhe petition is finaUy Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge