.^ 1 •Eil^E' IN THE_HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRn'_PETITIpN^SLNp_JSo^_ of 2010 PETITIONER VS Shri Victor Ekka, S/o Shri G. Ekka, Aged About 53 Years, working as Deputy Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur, C.G. Versus RESPONDENT SiB.!S> ^^ ,^,.<^" ...• ^^' ^ ^'^ _tLsy\/^ o-' w^ ^!^ \ "'y.^.. \. fgSSfiS^- • sa-\f SB *il ^' 3. K;\ ^'..w' '. . ' i ^, "" T^:?: ^ /? Pt. Ravishankar ShuKla University, through its Registrar, Amanaka, GE Road, Raipur, C.G. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan Raipur, C.G. Shri L.D. Deoras, Ex. Additional District Judge, Enquiry Officer, through the Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF TH^PETITIQNER: As stated above in the-cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT(S): As stated above in the cause title. ^,,, .S«>!,^ fi^3e. ^ l^^^l ^^^// /? ^^^^^ w mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1203 of2010 PETITIONER : ShriVictorEkka. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J, Present: Shri Sameer Kujur with Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate with Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22nd day of March, 2010) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a. writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint any other retired Vice Chancellor as Enquiry Officer, and farther seeks to challenge the letter dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby the request of the petitioner to appoint any other retired Vice Chancellor as Enquiry Officer and to have the services of a person as defence assistant, was rejected. However, the petitioner was informed to supply a list of documents which he requires for the purpose ofdefending his casein the departmental enquiry. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, while working as Deputy Registrar, was placed under suspension on 13.10.2009. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued. The petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2682/2009 seeking quashing of appointment of one L.D.Deoras, Retired District Judge, as Enquiry Officer and further quashing of appointment of one Alekh Ram Sahu, Lecturer, as Itllir. • presenting officer, in this Court. This Court, after having considered the case on merit, dismissed the said writ petition on 23.06.2009 (Annexure P/7) observing that "an enquiry by a retired District Judge would rather be fairer then appointing an officer from the staff of the University itself. It appears that the petitioner is avoiding the enquiry by filing this type ofpetition". Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal before . the leamed Division Bench of this Court being, W.A. No. 334/2009, which was also dismissed on 20.01.2010 (Annexure P/8) upholding the order passed by the Single Judge. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition for the same relief as sought for in the earlier writ petition, now, seeking appointment ofretired Vice Chancellor as Enquiry Officer and quashing of the letter dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereunder his request for appointment of retired Vice Chancellor was rejected and further his request for engagement ofan assistant for defence was also rejected. The petitioner, in sum and substance, has raised this issue earlier in W.P.(S) No. 2682/2009 (supra) and in W.A. No. 334/2009 (supra) which was rejected. Now, fhe present petition seems to be by way of review petition, which is not permissible. Once the order passed by the Single Bench has been upheld by the leamed Division Bench ofthis Court, a petition seeking substantially the same relief in a different garb is not pennissible. 4. Reliance of leamed counsel for the petitioner on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union oflndia v. Naman Singh Shekhawat 'm support of his contention that the bias on the part of the enquiry officer vitiates the departmental enquny, is not relevant at this stage as in Union of India (supra), the delinquent employee challenged the punitive order ' (2008) 4 SCC 1 , »• ITI-~^1 -i'mit 7. , • (^> passed after holding departmental proceeding on the ground ofbias, not at the stage of departmental proceedings. Thus, the same is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case. Reliance of leamed counsel for the petitioner on a decision of leamed Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in A.K.Dutta v. Union of India & Others , is also not relevant as the allegations were made after enquiry was complete and punishment was imposed thereon. Looking &om all angles, and particularly, the second writ petition for the substantially same relief as sought for in the earlier writ petition, at the stage ofdepartmental enquiry, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge (1978) IILLJ337Cal