N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {C WRIT PETITION No. p7 a /2oo4/ PETITIONER Dr. Prem Bodalkar, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Nandlal Bodalkar, Presently posted : Assistant Surgeon and Block Medical Officer, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.g.), Earlier posted at P.H.C. Sariya, Distt. Raigarh and Dhar'amjaigarh Civil Hospital, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Awar Sachiv, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. The Director, Department of Health Services D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The, Collector, District Raig‘arlq (Chhattisgarh). 5. The Chief Medical Officer, District Hospitalr istrict Raigarh (C.G.) // WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 2i; OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. I G} D me wwmsmaew" ' ' 9/6/ 24 00 Shn‘ A.N. Bhaktai ’Shri Sanjay S. Ag1 LA. No.3520/04 f haaring during summer With consent hear By thls writ p‘ Constitution of India, (Ammxure—P/ 1) passed l has been dismissed fml convicted by Judicial Dishict Raigarh in C ' under Section 467 mad undergo R.I. for three services of the petitiom that such conviction W1 Civil Services (Classifica is also stipulated in the no enquiry under Rule l to be conducted and in (2)(a) of the Constitu' d€C€SSaI§K 29/ 4/ 200d, a copy was served on Collector and on 21/5/ 2004 it Cwas served on the petitio er. \ hr the petitioner. awal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. pr urgent hearing and LA. No.3521/O4 for vacation are allowed. dnnally. :tition under Article 226/ 227 of the the peu'tioner has challenged the order )y respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner ti service on' the ground that he has been Magistrate First class, Dharamjaigarh, ' al Case No.4/95 decided on 5/ 12/2002 with Section 471 IPC and sentenced to ‘ yeats and pay fine of Rs‘SOOO/n The ;r have been terminated 0nd the ground Lich has been made is misconduct under tion, Control and Appeal} Rules, 1966. lt L' said order that since misconduct is such, 9 read with Rule 14 of the said Rules has a View of the provisions under Article 311 of India, departmental enquiry is not 011 g This order was passed in November, 2008. nan [them Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted by Judicial Magistrate. He has preferred criminal appeal healing No.149/02 (Dr.Prem Bodalkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and the said appeal prefeired by him has been allowed It is submitted ttmt the conviction and sentence have been challenged by the petitic‘ ner. and the order of conviction has been set ' aside on 26/ '7] 2003. The petitioner has submitted Annemes-P/3 and P14, Notice of this Shri Sanjay S. Ag wal, Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that he is not in a posi ‘ i1 to dispute that now the petitioner has been acquitted and he w s dismissed simply without holding any r enquuy. Having considered the, facts and circumstances of the, case and material on record, since the dismissal was mainly on the “ ground that he has bee convicted and now conviction has been set aside by the lower appellate court, dismissal from service on that count is not sustains ble. Under the circumstances, the order passed by responden no.2 dismissing the petitioner nom service is set—aside. Accordingly, this petition sta/nds disposed of. Before parting, it is on the ground of conviction and no enquiry was held, the order of ‘Hrffn/ Fakhrllddi“ 4’ Judge dismissal has been set as:;de on dge legal groundaalone. Sdl- WeW tition was given on 7/ 6/ 2004. made clear that since the dismissal was t ;