IHvisiQn Banch IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL N0. J^2' / 2011 APPELLANT PETITIONER ^^.^ Diwakar Singh Gaur, son of Late Shri Mahendra Singh Gaur, aged about 55 years, presently posted as ^^ ^^ Stenographer Grade II, Directorate, .'.•''"' K\"''" ^•"Jl'v \ Veterinary Services, Department of ..^'^^'l ^J^ ' Animal Husbandry, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ^gy1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Animal Husbandry (Dairy Services), Mantralaya D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh Director, Directorate of Veterinary Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARHHIGH^OURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006 READ WITH RULE 158(10) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES ^ 2007 T- ^•^ e^ ^ HJGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. APPELLANT/ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS WRITAPPEAL N0.452 OF 2011 Diwakar Singh Gaur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (WritAppeal under Section 2 (1) ofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Present:- Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, Addl. Adv. General for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of September, 2011) 1. This intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 13-5-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in VV.P. (S) No.2652 of 2011 (Diwakar Singh Gaur v. State of ChhattisQarh & Another). 2. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that even before condusion of enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has pre-judged the issues, as reflected from statement of allegation shown in the charge sheet Learned counsel further submits that in the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officeronly crated doubt and stated that the matter requires enquiry by police, whereas, in the article of charges and statement of allegation, the Disciplinary Authority has concluded that the appellant submitted forged mark sheet. Learned counsel next submits that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective passed the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. '% ^w-^e^ 'i';y ^.: ../•^' Gc 4. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that what has been stated in the article of charges and statement of allegations is merely an allegation and cannot be treated as conclusion because till date the matter has not been enquired into. The apprehension of the appellant does not appear to be well founded. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The same is just & proper and does not warrant any interference ofthis Court. 6. As an upshot, the writ appeal is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge