‘ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 133a. HcN'BLE HGN’BLE SHRI SHR; R DHIRENDRA N CHANDRAKA‘R MtSHRA, JJ‘ & Presenf Shn T K Tiwan counsel fer the appeuant ORAL Junemem (315‘uanuary, 201 1) Pei’ Dhirendra Mishra, J The 'appeliant was posted as Development O‘ficer of ihe Life insurance Corporatnon of India at Branch Offme Durg He was piaced undei subpensmn Vide order dated 21 6 2006 (Annexure P/2) Thereafter charge sheet (Annexure P/S) was Issued on 7.1 .2008 and as many as srx charges asgdetaited in para-1 of the impugned order, were framed. The petitioner’s Writ petition fer quashing of the charge sheetmand departmental enquiry has een dismissed by the impugned order. '9 02?. Shri T K :iwari learned counsel for the appellant submrts that in the instant case charges against the appellant are not spearfic The documente which form basrs for irammg charges and the statemerte recerded in th preliminary enqury, are not pa‘t of the charge sheet and thus the charge sheet itself is illegal and deserves ta be quashed 03‘ Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Co'urt in the rna‘ters of State of UP Vs Mohd Sharrf1 It is argued that in the departmental enquiry where charge sheet does not furnish necessary partrculars and the n statements or Witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry are alsonot i b e Wnt Appeal No 11 ?f 2311 Appeilant : Bhushan La! S/o Hate Lakhan La? aged about 46 Petitioner > years Occupation‘ : Development Offcer Life insurance of Rio of Dhamdha, Corporaqxon Katya District Durg (CG) ; Vereus Reépondents 1. ' Life Insurance 001$poration of India, thmugh it‘s; Manager, Market, (MP) 2‘ Zonel Ne‘rv B11epal Semor Divieionai M‘anagref, (Discipiinary Authorify),é v Life lnsurance Corporation cf lndla, Jeevan Bema Marg,Pandn Ramur CG) 3. ' The Enquiry Offmex (Chle; Manager) Branch Office-1 Bhlla! Durg (CG) furnished,_ the deiinwent is denied of a reasonab!e opportunity to defend himseif at di$ciplinary enquiry. 7 He further argues that the Iearned SmLie Judge has net constdered i the law laid dawn by the Supreme Court m Various judgments csted by the V petitioner which are futly apphuabte to the tacte 0f the present case O4. I Heard learned hounsel for the appetlat'tt amt perueed the Impugned‘ i G53. ' Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition with the observation It thafttsix charges, leveled against the petitioner are self—explanatory and; specific, containing relevant details. Two annexuree have been appended along with the eh'arge sheet, on the basis Vof which the charges have been: teveled. The petitioner is'at liberty to examine all these documents during, departmental enquiry. There'is nothing on record to show that the petitioner demanded any particular document. Thus, the petitioner has failed to peint out tany legal ground, on the basis of whioh charge sheet given to him, can be l’quashed, and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner ‘ are distinguishabte on facts. 06.; ln the matter or State of And’hr’a Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishang, the’ charges were framed on the basis of report of Anti Corruption Bureau agatnst severat employees of the Munrorpal Corporation for the unauthorized construction sard to have taken ptace With therr collusron wrthout par‘rculanzrng the role of eaoh employee m the charges Thus generahzatron ot'the charges was criticized by the Supreme‘®ourt. 07.; ln State of Punjab Vs. MK. Khannag, considering the facts of that case, it was observed that where action is malatide and prompted by personal vendetta and positive evidence is taken on record to decry'an administrative action on the ground of malafides and arbitrariness, the charge sheet may be quashed. 08. L ln the case of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha‘, the High Court allovved the writ petition of‘the delinquent, quashed and set aside the order of his remoilal and directed reinstatement in service with alt consequential benefits, The‘Supreme Court, dismissing the a‘ppeai of the State of U.P. against the order of thejHigh Coon, held that the enquiry was conducted in 1998) 4 scc 154 _ R 200! SC 343 orctei r M reach of mandatory rutes applicabie t0 the delinquent offmer The dehnquem was cordemned unheard Withcm examining any Witness m ‘ support of the charge: Thus the entire protfdmgs were Vitiaxed being m Vioiatnch of the pnnmples of natural justice and mandatory ruies. : In the instant case. after going througr the impugned charge sheet f (Annexure Pi5) we are in entire agreement with the observations of the _ learned Singie Judge that the charges framed against the petitioner arei: speettio and not vague as alieged and the tfacte of the present case are: distingutahabte from the faots of the Cited judgments and the petitioner haei no permissmie legal ground to impugn the oharge sheet 10 We have already referred to the law lard down by the Supreme Court: m the Judgments relied upon by the appellant and we fnd that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case There re no substance In this} appeal the eame deeerves to be and is accordmgly, drsmts% r / l Sdl- Dhirendra g Sd/- Mish ~ x l tANGANATH cHANDRAKAR Judge b 69 a B