IN THE HIGH COURT 0£_JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETITION N0. 2.4/§ 72006 PETITIONER ^ D.S.Dubey, S/o. Late Shri S.D.Dubey, aged about 55 years, working as Asstt.Grade III Public Works Department, Sub-divn. Koni, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^/l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). . 2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Supdt. Engineer, Public Works Department, ' Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLAF'OE_ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR ^^^___ __DIRECTION. XI-HC-22 {^rr^i^r f<;-fi?b S^ Sti+1 •^ftfl ^sr•?qraRTq,'8^ftaTi®,fa'ti'ay. W^?T'q^ vs'f'..*J±:.s^l m«Rwgpfrai &6 , ••^ 200 I^^I' "3n^i ^aTWflfttt 10,5^004 Shri Irsdrosen Sahu. Advoc4' 5hri Ashutosh Kachmaha, G^ Heard. iy the instsn* petition th^ and propriety of the order dated Chief Engine.er, Public Works D^i Ihe eppeai preferred by the psTij No.3- Superintending Sng'masr, stoppaae of 'one grade incremen|f sp I have heard iearned counss iende In the grounas cf chaiiendi that the orde" psssed by ths c^ suffers from Derversit/ and sat mind, without assioning any rsaso^ the C.S. Civi! Services (C!asS!fi4< fliereinafl'er referred *o es 'ine A| Learned counse! fop the not able to polnt out how ttie arbitrcry, iilegal or suffers fr'om thot +hs sgms has bssn passsd ^ order 'fii^id^i'i ^ii^fff "^ ftcst <r^<^< ^sipgii sn^i ;te for -the petitioner; syt. Adv. for the S+G+S. petitioner hos questioned the '/aiidiTy 19.4.2006 pas.sed by respondent No-2- ^partment, Bifagpur thereby dismissin'g fioner cgainst the order' of respondent BWt>, BilasDur in which a bsnaity of ^- with eumuiative effect was imposed ! for w.e petitioner on admission-. of the order It has 'ossn menTJoned s^psiiste authprity is arbitrary, iitegai, ^ne has been passed without c^ipSying and aiso in vioiatioff of Bu!s 27 (2) of ^ction, Controi & Appeal) ftuies, 19&6 Ti4ction :*'). p^titioner whiie arguing the msttei' wos passed by the appeita'te authofity is peryersity. ,As fcr as the point raised 'l.'ithout appiication of mind and without [^fT^^'fe^ Fi XI-HC-22 T^'iqpTRPf, s9Tl1"y'ISi" t«l<niwi< 3TT^T irag? imwi *~w<^ 'W^ 200 fN^ST" «n^I^!I R;-ii+ 3ii^r sb^ ^fer fl .-' ossfyiing cny r-eason is concemed, p by respondent No.2-Chief ERgineef has considersd tne snquiry rspor' Super'intsndjng Engineer, same h. iiriDuoned ond it hcs aiso been r-ter, punished on the 9r-ound that he in< the higher authorities and. even Superintending Engirieei- In the e"q| writing tetters to the higher author'j in the order- imDuoned that there th«petitiener, 1+iereforc, it <annot been passed without assigning any As far as vioiaTior, of Ruie 2?| ruie (2) of ftuis 27 snvisaged that ' in these rutes has beencompiied compliance .has resu!te.d in the CQ"5titution of Zndis or iift tha findirsgs of The discipiincry outhori l4ie records; ea-id (c) whether thj imposed is adequate. inadequaTe or| given in sub-ciauses (i) d ('i)of Clcu^! ^llfi'l'iil-l tlll'-ff'^fs1^ tfa^K •^3iP<m3i]^T s^rusal of the impu9ned order passec! snows that ttie appeltats authority por'J' snd finding of respondsnt No.3- hjig been mentioned in "riitt or'der n-ter,|-ioned thaT the petittoner.has been juiged in direct corresgondence wWa after passing the order by the e"q|j!r>/ the petitioner was conTinuously / ^ ... ! ' ttles. It hcs furthei' bsen mentloned ; no iniorovement in the conduct uf [bs said th.at thfe order Impugned has r^jaaonar vifiThoutappiicationbfmind. (2) of Ruies, 1966 is concsrned, sub- ifc) whether the Bfocsdurs laid down Iwlth and if not, whefner such non- '"oiation of any provisions of tfie Faiiure of justice; (b) ".'h°thei" the •y cre wcrranl^d by The evidence on penal+y or the enhimced ponaity |severe and then pass the ordefs, as ^(c). _^^ •\ r-. t * r4r^ ^fg^ r g i ("} (' ^- ^^^^^^^^^S^^^KK^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M XI-HC-22' '3s? ••^14to1il, afllfl'ia, fa'aiyy. vmvn fhwiia '';BT, 200' fq^T' .'•;—sn^i^ir K-U'h Sf^y st)*lict) <rff?tT f) E?'Sl<o^^f, No+hina haa besh mentio Superintending Engineer/Enquiry O'f conciucting -rtie enquiry or thers was compiiance of the principiBS of nan has been raised ttiat There was no to reach to the conclusion •Hiat the was not substantia'ted ba.sed on Thersfore, I am of the consideredl been cbls *o raise the ooirst 1*!at tha *he sub-rule,(25 of. Ruie 27 of the For th®foregolng reasons, I petitiQner' has' not neeh abie to interfersnce by This CourT under Ai of India. Ths petition bema dsvoi< it is. accordinaiy, dismissed. Cgnsequent'y, m:(W.)P. NQ.IS^ >hsd Oflfice cnNFd'4li *iH(nl*'^f^T?|' <f^^l< ^3lfWI3II^[ in thia petitien that the Oflficer' dld not fo.ltew the rules while Ifdilure of Justicc on account of non- |rai justice &r -rhe r-ules!. No 9r'ound tncTeriai before -ttie Enquiry Officer ^hdrge levelbd a9ainst rte petitioner [the evidence availabie on record. opjnion Thcit the petiTioner has not appsiiate authority has npt fottewsd Rijtes,1966. , : • |m of the sonside.red opinion that the nsjse emy point befors this Couri for1' '.rfricies 226 d 227ofine ConsTitution 6f msrit, iiabis to be djssritssed cr.d nslse rTTic 9/06 also stana's dismisssd. Sd/- 8 L.C.Bhadoo Judge [Tfi^^rt