a;: ^ ^ '-$ ?1 2 TifW IgS? ygftC! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. S7 / /200 5 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS vf^ ^7.^ ^t ~i>^ ^^/ .^/y/h c^^/o' '•^^x- /y^ r ^^s •y ^""^.. •^> /^* /sl y//, ^ MAHIPAL DEV SHARMA SON OF SHRI I.M.DUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALGAWAKALA P.0. SONHAT TEHSIL SONHAT DISTT. KOREA C.G. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH, D.K.S. BHAWAN RAIPURC.G. COLLECTOR BAIKUNTHPUR C.G. KOREA ASSITANT COMMISSIONER ADIVASI VIKAS KOREA BAIKUNTHPUR C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA K" ~3 f "41'^iM'4, ISiTliy'lic, 1q<rl!'Hli,< ..k2n.-..-S..'3:.l.;..C).^.. W[2»» I; '^ -CB-B-S- -!-F- ai ••tw-a ~< '^.sfRis'sni Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advo|:ate with. Ms. Ritu Mislu-a, couusel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Pauep. Lawyer for fhe State on advauce copy. . | Application for urgen1?Jiea}-ing is atlowed. »: 1 Heard on adinission. The petitioner has prayefl. for quashnient of departaieatal uiquiry pending agaiast him.. TI^e case of fhe petitioner is that fhe petitioner was placed undeij suspension vide order dated 19.08.2002 (Annexure P-1), |charge sheet was issued vide Annexure P-2. The petitioner l|led fhe reply -^> the chai^e sheet aad participated in. the discij.}lm.ary proceediags. The iaquiiy ofiicer after conductuig the iaqil^ry subinitted fhe .final report dated 24.03.2004 vide Annexure P-4. Now the niatter is Iving. before the disciptuiaiy aufhority for furthei| proceedings. The petitioner has challe^ged fh.e iaquin' on various factual aspects. It is subiaitted that Ijhe act attributed to fhe petitioner does not constitute nus-condufct aad is not ia contra.vention of Rule 3 of Civil Services Conducf Rules, 1965 for which the inqiui^7 is beiag conducted. Leam.ec{ counsel for the petitioner also submits fhat ia fact negUgeiice [in duty is also not established and fhe report is bad ia law on thes^ counts. Since the iaquiry is at fhe verge of couipletion and fhe „ . _ ! inqinrv' repprt^Jias^been filed liv fhe uiquirv officer andjlial_the 3RPRJ—FS/350—!2/2000—50,000. ne'ffi' 'SBkBAA^.*- Sffli!BKI;li« ^^".: •'-?-^'ff^" ^SE^?^''"-1 s§?^^ •!^sy!~?^ < ^:'^^^-^^^^:i^ '^^^-^S^sS^.-^ ^T •<<l'4iw<<, (9Ti1^'|(o, fs|<rll^^< 'sn^ivi^ (ipi^ir) wrafepih fWriT'? fe'st Tfai^K disciplinaiy authority is to takej further action under the law, this Court is of the opiaion fhat it '4'ould not be: proper to iaterfere in the m.atter at fhis stage, whicji is in fact at the Sstg end of the disciplinaiy proceediugs. Since tbis Court is , n(it iaclined to interfere ia fhe proceedings at this stage, 16; petition has to be disiaissed. Further the petitioner may higtjlight aU these grounds while film; his reply; i^- such aa exigency anses on account of issuaace of notice before punishiueiit. | Siace ttie iaquiry report |ias been subuiitted, it is expected fhat tiie discipluiary authoriftr shall tiy to coiuplete disciplixiar}' proceediugs within two inonths frova. fhe date ofproduction ofcopy g of fhis oifler before him . | With aforesaid observatio^i, the petition is dismissed. Certified copy as per rule^. —- A-_— SunilKumarSinha Judge