S 6a A ./'s" / i HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR DSViSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUN!L KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No.10z/2009 ADpellant Petitioner in the Writ Petition No.1258/2001 Virendra Kumar Kataliiha S/o Shri SP KataHiha, aged about 50 years, presently posted as Branch Msnager Chhattlsgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Kargi Road, Distt Biiapsur, ChiTattisgarh. Versus Respondents RespondentNo.1. in Writ Petitlon No. 1258/2001 Respondent No.2. in 2 Writ Petitlon No.1258/2001 MP State Warehousing Corperation through their Managing Director, Office Compisx, Block A Gautam Nagsr, Bhopai, Madhya Pradesh Shri NL Munia, Inquiry Officer / Manager (Tech), Office Compiex, Block A Gautam Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Writ Appeal under Section 2 (11 ofChhattisaarh Hiah Court (ApBeai to Division BenchlAct.2006 ..^ y^ •": "\ Present: Shri Rajkamal Singh and Shri MK Baeg, counsel for the appe!l§nt. judament (17th April,200S) The followinfl Judgment of the Court was passed bv Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counse! forthe appetlant are heard on admission. 2) Appeltant Virendra Kumar Kataillha has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 27.03.2d09, passed in -WP No.1258/2001. K« -\- 3) The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition for the followino reliefs; "1. The show cause notice for termination/removal dated 16.07.2001 issued by respondsnt No.1 against this petitionsr msy please be quashed. 2. Thls hon'ble High Court may please klnd enough in dtsallowing the undinys of the encjuiiy" report; accordingly the said enquiry report dated 25.05.2001 may pleased be quashed. 3. Costs, damages and any other order which thte hon'ble High Court deems fit to the facts and clrcumstance of the case, may please be a!lowed." 4) The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the show cause notice dated 16.07.2001 and the enquiry report dated 25.05.2001. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough constderatlon of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and foltowing the dicta of the Apex Court In the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs irahm Datt Sharma and another, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 179 and Union of India and another Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, dismissed the writ petition holding that no interference in the matter Is warranted at this stage. 6) During thecourse of hearing it transpired that the appellant/ petitioner has already submitted reply to the show cause notice on 18.07.2001. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the impugned order, 3^..®» adma whereby the appellant's writ petition is dismissed does not warrant any interference tn this writ appeai. 8) The writ appeal, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge s