‘ W , r ....... , IN Tag HON_‘_B_LE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE , CHHATTISGAREI at BILAspUg. 2205' /2001. ,V/«c’h r \ 7k’5//5ofxx l h hGaarwar Sdiianng s. Ciounse mg Ahhsiuos s (ltanra or Gay For, Sian E gl \ m) n WRIT PETIT ION NO andra‘Deep Rai S/o Shri. Ramanand Rai Aged about 37 Years, Constable in CISF, ‘BSP Unit, Bhilai, Resident at: Qr. Non 2—A/Street-3, Sector- 3, Bhilai Dt. Durg(CG) . . . . . . . . . (Petitioner) VERSUS ' n ion of india, 1. through: The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, 13, C.G°O.Complex, Ministry of Home Affaris, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.— 110003. The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, BSP, Unit, Bhilai, Sector— 3, BHILAI Dt. Durg (Gen The Asst a. Comendent Central Industrial Security Force, qv BSP Unit, Sector— 3, Bhilai, District: Durg (CG). The Deputy Commandant, Central industrial Security Force, ESP, Unit, Sector— 3, BHILAE, District: Durg (»CG)., ( Respondents) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER/DIRECTIONS AND mm wRIT__I_N THE NATURE OF §4_A__NDAMUS , PROH IB IT ION AND CERTIORARY ETC . V 1. PARTICULARS OFWIHE PETITIONER Same as given in the Cause Title. 2 u PARTICULARS O F ’IH E RE SPONDENTS Same as given in the cause title. Contd.. . .21— IEFEEé/ ‘\lB)l‘\ E; HEGH COURT OF CHEIATTISGARH z BILASPUR M Wlit Pétition No. 2205 of 2001 Petitioner Charldra Deep Raj Versus R€spondents Union of India & others WRIT PE’I‘ITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shrj Swish K. Agnihotn' J.) Shri V. K. Pandey, Advocate for th€ petitioner. Ms Fouzia Mina, Assistant Solicitor Goneral for the respondents. ORDER (oral) (Passed on this 15m day of December, 2009) Heard. ‘1. The petitioner has died this petition challenging order dated 7.10.2001 (Annexure A/3) whereby the. charge sheet has been iesued to the petitioner to initiate departmental enquiry. Learned counsel appean'ng for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issue of the charge sheet dated 7.10.2001 for the saine act of alleged misconduct, for which a climinal case was med and on appeal the petitioner has been acquitted. Thus, no depaitmental enquny can be initiated for the same act of alleged misconduct. 3. On going thmugh the papers appended to the petition, it is evident that in Criminal Case No. 518/2002 (State Vs. Chandradeep), by judgment dated 15.4.2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, the petitioner was convicted for commission of the odence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to Q] a sum of‘Rs. 500] ~ as tine. In default of payment of the fine amount, to undsrgo 15 days simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1 15/ 2002 (Chandra Deep Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein by judgment dated 28.5.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that by interim order dated 8.12.2001 this Court has directed that the departmental enquiry may go on but final order shall not be passed. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts situation, I am of the considered opinion that since the departmental enquiry is pending consideration; the petitioner may raise any objection or contention, if any, before the competent authority. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere in the proceedings of departmental enquiry. In View of the foregoing, nothing remains for adjudication. The matter stands disposed of. The interim order dated 8.12.2001 stands vacated. No order asto costs. / x Thakur Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri 1 Judge