Jagdish Bansal vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in the present writ petition is to Annexure P-1, dated 25.2.2018 and Annexure P-2, dated 6.1.2018. Annexure P-2 being the charge-sheet

issued to the Petitioner and Annexure P-1 being the order of appointment of an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire enquiry which is being conducted is in predetermined manner and is with a view to

dismiss the Petitioner from service. According to him, the Respondents had received an anonymous complaint and on the basis of an anonymous

complaint a preliminary enquiry has been conducted at the back of the Petitioner wherein he was not taken into confidence in any manner and that the

department is relying upon the documents sent by the police authorities and on the basis of the same, service of the Petitioner is likely to be

terminated. He next submits that these documents which have been furnished by the police authorities are in fact in favour of the Petitioner, but the

Respondents would not look into it in its proper perspective.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents however opposing the petition submits that it is only an issuance of a charge-sheet and appointment oder of

Enquiry Officer which is under challenge in the present writ petition. According to him, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India would not substitute itself as a disciplinary authority nor would this Court act as an Enquiry Officer to inquire at the veracity of

the charges levelled against the Petitioner.

Further contention of the management is that the allegations against the Petitioner are quite serious. The charges against the Petitioner is of

obtaining employment by playing fraud. That being the employer the Respondents have all the authority under service rules to conduct an inquiry in

this regard and it is with this that the charge-sheet has been issued and the Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Therefore there is no scope of any

interference by this Court and the writ petition deserves to be rejected.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition at this

juncture is too premature to be entertained. Prima facie, the charges levelled against the Petitioner seem to be too serious. The Petitioner has been

called upon to give a reply to the charge-sheet and also to participate in the departmental enquiry. It is expected of the Respondents particularly the

Enquiry Officer that the enquiry which would be conducted against the Petitioner would be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. A fair

opportunity of defence would be provided to the Petitioner and that whatever evidence which the Petitioner as a delinquent employee would bring

before the Enquiry Officer would be considered in its proper perspective and only thereafter would the Enquiry Officer submit his report to the

disciplinary authority who again is expected to act reasonably and after applying due procedure as is required under the standing orders governing the

service conditions of the Petitioner take a final decision by a speaking order.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition in its present form stands dismissed.