IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. (C) No .S ^.2-0 . . . /2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: ^^/^ \^<^y y Randhir Deyasi, Aged 52 Yrs. S/o Shri M.D. Deyasi, Behind Ganga Nursing Home, Jagatpur, Raigarh VERSUS 1. Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog, Through its Secretary, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (CG) 2T' Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Ltd., [A Chhattisgarh Govt. Undertaking, (A Successor Co. of CSEB)] Through, its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur 3. Additional General Manager, Human Resources, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Ltd., [A Chhattisgarh Govt. Undertaking, (A Successor Co. of CSEB)], Danganiya, Raipur PETITION U/ART. 226 OF_CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^/^ ~^ l;i '•VSSK£is'?&, 9 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 5820 OF 201 1 Randhir Deyasi Versus Chhattisgarh LokAyog & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. ORDER (Passed on this 29th day of September, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 31 May, 2011, passed by the respondent No.1 and notice dated 29' July, 2011 (Annexure P-1), issued, thereon, by the respondent No.3. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on a complaint made by one Dr. S.N.Agrawal on 26 February, 2001, the respondent No.1 initiated investigation against the petitioner. The respondent No.1 found that the petitioner alongwith one Shri Ashish Toppo, Assistant Engineer have committed misconduct as defined under section 2(h) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 2002'). Thus, it was recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings and if the allegation of misconduct is proved, the punishment of imposition of compulsory retirement may be imposed and submit a report within a period ofthree months. 3. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has acted on surmises and conjectures in discarding actual facts and explanation submitted by the petitioner. The finding recorded by the Aayog was contrary to the facts, thus the recommendation made by the Aayog to take disciplinary action against the petitioner is prejudicial and contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002, as the same violates principles Of natural justice. It is further contended that the notice on the basis of report RB—" iwv"» 2 submitted by the respondent No.1 is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Thus, this petition. The scheme of the Adhiniyam, 2002, has been considered at length in Rajesh Bissa v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others by this Court, wherein, it was observed as under: "24. Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 provides for submission of a report. If in the opinion of the Lok Aayog, the complaintis established, the LokAayog shall communicate its finding and recommendations in writing alongwith the relevant documents of the competent authority. Sub section (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 prov/des for monitoring of the action on the basis of report made by the LokAayog. 25. Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 provides that any information obtained in the course of the enquiry by the Lok Aayog, members of its staff or a person or agency whose services are utilized by the Lok Aayog for conducting inquiries in respect ofany complaint and any evidence recorded or collected in connection with such information shall be treated as confidential. Sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 pmvides for disclosure of information for the purpose of enquiry or in any report to be macfe thereon or for any action or proceedings to be taken on such report or for the purposes of any proceeding for an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Act No. 19 of 1923) or any offence of giving or fabricating false evidence under the Indian Penal Code or for the purpose of any proceedings under Section 15 of this Adhiniyam or for such other purposes as may be prescribed. 28. On perusal of the entire pmvisions of the Adhiniyam, 2002, itappears that the office ofLokAayog has been constituted to enquire into misconduct as alleged against certain public servants and further for the matter connected therewith. 'Misconduct' has been defined as a public servant who has abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, orhas actuated in the discharge ofhis functions and as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives, has indulged in corruption, undue favour, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity, or such public servant is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources ofincome and such pecuniary resources or property is held by public servant personally or by any member of his family or by any other person on his behalf." Under the provisions of section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002, if the Lok Aayog is of the QpiniQH that the CQmplajnt made by the complainant is W.P.(C) No.4964 of 2008, decided on 27ttl April, 2010 ashok 3 established, it shall communicate its findings and recommendations alongwith the relevant documents to the competent authority. Thereafter, it is for the competent authority to examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 and intimate to the Lok Aayog within a period of three months of the date of receipt of the report regarding the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon. 6. The petitioner had full opportunity to put forward his case before Lok Aayog also, after considering his response, the Lok Aayog has passed the impugned order dated 31 May,2011. 7. It appears that after receipt of the report dated 31 May, 2011 of the Lok Aayog, the respondent No. 3 had issued a notice dated 29 July, 2011 alongwith a copy of the report to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed his reply on 19 August, 2011 (Annexure P/3). It is not clear asto whether any action has been taken thereafter or not. Thus, this petition seeking quashing ofthe notice dated 29 July, 2011 based on the report of the report of the Lok Aayog dated31 May, 201 1, is premature at this stage as no order has been passed till date on the notice to which the petitioner has reptied. There is no challenge to any order which creates cause of action and consequent thereupon, no adverse order against the petitioner is passed. 8. Thus, 1 do not find any merit in the instant petition and the petition is dismissed. i—:"-'—--—-—- Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMORI 'v Judge