Gopal Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 903 OF 2016 Gopal Chandrakar son of late Balram Chandrakar aged about 32 years resident of Netaji Chowk Shyam Bazar Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. S.P. Kale and Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 01/04/2016 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by order dated 03/12/2015, petitioner has been

subjected to suspension and charge-sheet has been served and departmental enquiry has been instituted. He would further submit that charges framed in this charge sheet and charge sheet issued earlier and concluded by order imposing punishment both are one and the same, therefore, present second departmental enquiry is not maintainable in law and deserves to be quashed. 2.

Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has not filed his reply to the charge-sheet, therefore, the petition is premature and the petitioner is free to file reply raising all such grounds in his reply. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be allowed to raise all the grounds which are raised in this petition including question of similarity of charges and non maintainability of second departmental enquiry before the Disciplinary Authority. 4.

Prayer is fair and reasonable, if such a question is raised before the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority would do well to consider and decide the said question in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made

clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.

5.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Tiwari