Santosh Kumar Fekar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2223 of 2018 Santosh Kumar Fekar Assistant Grade - 3 , Office Of Deputy Director Animal Husbandry , Baloda Bazar, S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Fekar , Aged About 38 Years , R/o - Purani Basti Govardhan Chowk Baloda Bazar , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Animal Husbandry , Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director Directorate Of Animal Husbandry Mantralay Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh Deputy Director Animal Husbandry District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State :

Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 12.03.2018 Heard.

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by communication dated 22.12.2017 issued by the Deputy Director, Veterinary Services.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 22.03.2016. He is a handicapped person. After his appointment, letter was issued to the petitioner on 22.03.2016, now the petitioner has received impugned communication which requires the petitioner to submit information/report regarding pardon or disposal of the case in which he was imposed fine by the Magistrate for alleged commission of offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act in Crime No.286 of 2008 on 04.09.2008. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has already submitted information by filing an affidavit but again he is being required time and again to give

information under impugned communication.

4.

The petitioner was appointed by way of probation vide order dated 22.03.2016 subject to terms and conditions appended to the order of appointment. One of the condition incorporated in clause 7 is that if upon Character Verification any adverse entry/comment is found, services could be terminated. 5.

It appears that when the Appointing Authority came to know about imposition of fine on the petitioner on the allegation of commission of offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, he has issued him a notice. The information sought by the Authority from the petitioner, if available, may be submitted, in addition, to the affidavit which has already been submitted by him. Thereafter, the authority would be at liberty to take appropriate decision with regard to the services of the petitioner, probationer in the light of disclosure of information regarding his conviction under Section 13 of the Gambling Act.

6.

The petition is disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha