^-.. lil.. 1 ••<» T -F •HC—7i "3'ST '*ii*ii<n<(, yivlyis, fstdl'S-iy,'!. *11*1MI (htllth ^'?T 'V TS?Ti5ff n •?fFSi 97iiw 3ii^r'tra^ (' 'RaiwHlwsn^i (Sinole Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Jystice tShlrendro Mishra) yLB PrTITrONER (Petition U/A Babl aboi CTSl 1226 of Constitution of India) |u Kuinar, S/o Shri Yashwant Singh, Aged |it 24 years, Constable No.034380178, RTC F, Bhilai, PO Utai, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) Verbus RESPON&ENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 'WlfwftT •WRlf•? fest TfSR^R •^aTfinsn^T (s) No.5497/2008 fnion of India, Throu9h the Secretary, Ainistry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. Jommandant, Central Industrial Security Force, (CISF) RTC Utai, Bhilai, bistrict C>ur9 C&) )eputy Cowmandant, Central Industrial pecurity Force (CISF) HWP, Manuguru [AndhraPradesh) iS Sharmd, (Investigating Officer) i/o Not known, Deputy Commandont, RTC, ^hilai, PO Utoi, bistrict Durg (C6) l.C. Kalsi, Deputy Commandtint, Central Industrial Securit/ Force (CI5F) Unit HWP ^anuguru (AP). Pcesent: Mr. Anand Tiwari, Adv.forth Mr. SK Benwal, Central 6ovt. petitioner. jStanding Counsel for the respondent/UQI. Bt^???>IE 'S^f^.fff^^ RflSsg Bl. :;1 if :1 -HC—78 7 ^ST 'tlWIW^, WVliWI'a, hv\W{if. Hi^mi ^«irai I^C '.TT f^K n •?rroi wtfR? s^v ''raqr ('^f33T^t?) TOITW^fean^T 6— 30 09.2008 By this petition under petitioner is questioning th< initiated a9ainst the petiti respondent No.2, with the ch with a Woman Constable subsistence of his first marri This petition has been amilar departmental procee Constabte, with whom it is second ntarriage, and in the exonerated vide order datedl On the other hand. 3 cft!'i4l<v)<fr'T 'EfFR^ ^ f^et' {f^l^K' ^sifm SII^M ^rticle 226 of the Gonstitution of India, the validity of the departmental proceedings j)ner, who is working as Constable under (irge that he has contracted second marriage [working in the sance department, during p9e- filed by the petitioner on the ground that a hiing was atso initiated against the Woman lleged that the petitioner has contracted said departmental proceedings she has been 12.4.2008 and therefore, nothing remains to be decided in the present dejtartmental proceedings against the petitioner ri Beriwal, Central 6ovt. Standing Counsel, submits that defence of th^ petitioner in the departmental proceedings cannot be considered at thi^ stage and whatever defence the petitioner has, he is free to raise the jsame in the departmental proceedings, which shall be considered at the ap^ropriate stage. Taking into considerafion that the departmental enquiry is still in prggress against the petitioijier and the ground taken by the petitioner in ^isss BSg ^ss^;SK s» ^^E'SiSlS'.'.'^ ^•,'';;^.^,.', B^a lil: -^ 3C—78 ^.'1 w fr-iw sv^swv ^ 'S^ «'41<11CI<<, ®tll'yi6,fq<1W^< *ii*<Mra»w^ sn^r Tra?? (ipfgsi^q) TCnw^ifetsn^i ~3 this petition is a matter of defence in the departmental appropriate stage, I am of against the petitioner Accordingly, the petition is d d^fence, the petitioner is entitled to take this proceedings, which may be considered at the opinion that the departmental proceedings canijiot be quashed on the aforesaid ground. ismissed. tBie '»l<lld«(lllWcil'itfe'Zt iFaK^K ^SlfiiqsiI^I Sd/- . DhirendraMisbra Jud&e ^w. ^iE^^^i ^^^^^ ^^is^ ^s^'^ ^^s^ x;^ ^::";':' K,9 EB£8B