W049? \1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2424 of 2009 PETITIONER : Kalicharan Chouhan, Aged 53 years; S/o Late Chamm Chouhan, Working as U,D.T. cum Hostel Superintendem (suspended) Attached at 0/0 Block Education Oiflcer, Bagicha, Dimict Jashpur (C.G.) R/o Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) ' ”VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaryt Department of Scheduled Tn'be and Scheduled Caste Development Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur. 2. The Connnissioner, Depaitment of Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development, HQ. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University. Raipur. 3. The Collector, (Tribal Development Branch) District Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Oiiicer, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION LNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TNDA RESPONDENTS SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K, Agniliotri. J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesliarwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, l’anel Lawyer for the Statei’respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11$ day of May, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the memo of charge—sheet dated 07. 10.2008 (Annewre P/l). a Shri Keshaiwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that section l4(3)(ii) of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966; requires submission of a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charges. The charges in question are not supported by statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour. Thus, the charge-sheet desgrves to be quashed. Shri Kesharwani further submits that {he charges are vague and does not disclose any cause of action. Be that as it may, if the submission made by the petitioner are mandatory and aifects the disciplinaiy enquiry substantially, the petiiioner may raise the same alier the enquiry has resulted into some punishment. At this stage, this Court shall not interfere with the charges or the other requirements of charges, if any. NO special circumstances exist which may invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. In View ofthe foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order astso costs. UI ‘4‘ .. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri \R ' Judge l ,_‘