y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Si No. 7501 of2007 PETITIONER U.S. Chaturvedi, Aged about 45 years, S/o Shrl R.S. Chaturvedi, Assistant Foreman, E. & M., R/o Qt. No. Mq. 1316, Pragati Nagar, Dipika Area, S.E.C.L., Distt. Korba (C.G.) Versus South Eastern Coai Field Ltd., Through - Jhe Chief Managing Director, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur (C.G.) Dy. Chief Mining Manager, Dipika, Expension Project, • Dipika Area, S.E.C.L., Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 22S OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QF RESPONDENTS ApRearance: Shri B.K. Chakrabarty, counsei for the petitioner. None of the respondents. ORAL ORDER (19.12.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA^A Heard on admission. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet-cum-suspension order dated 15.11.2007 passed on the ground that the petitioner has sub-let his company accommodation and he is residing in an additional structure, which he has unauthorizedly built near the company's quarter making encroachment on the company iand. Learned counse! for the petitioner argues that the faise aliegations have been made against the petltioner and on these aliegations neither he can be susoended nor the charge sheet can be issued to him. t have gone through the contents of the writ petition as aiso the contents ofthe order and the documents annexed along with writ petition. In the matter of Union of Inctla and others vs. Upendra Sinfih (1994) 3 S.C.C. 357, the Apex Court held vide para 6 that in the case of charges framed in a discipli'nary inquiry, the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to ./ WP(S) No.7501/2007 vatti have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribuna! cannot take over the functions of the discipiinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunai, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the discipiinary authority or the appetlate authority as the case may be. Admittedly the factual aspects have been raised in this case by the petitioner which cannot be decided by a writ court and on these aspects a finding has to be recorded by the competent authority during the course of inquiry. i do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 15.11.2007 at this stage.. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 1 / ' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge fl^^