← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2308/2018disposed off

Mahadeo Katulkar v. High Court Of Chhattisgarh

2018-04-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2331 of 2018 Mahadeo Katulkar S/o Late Laxman Katulkar, aged about 60 years, Retired District Judge (Member of Higher Judicial Service, State of Chhattisgarh), R/o HIG 452, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Danganiya Raipur (C.G.).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.).

2. Registrar (Inspection and Enquiry), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.).

3. Inquiry Officer (Shiv Mangal Pandey, Senior Faculty Member), Chhattisgarh State Judicial Academy, Old High Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Respondents WPS No.2308 of 2018 Mahadeo Katulkar S/o Late Laxman Katulkar, aged about 60 years, Retired District Judge (Member of Higher Judicial Service, State of Chhattisgarh), R/o HIG 452, Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Danganiya Raipur (C.G.).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.).

2. Registrar (Inspection and Enquiry), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.).

3. Inquiry Officer (Shiv Mangal Pandey, Senior Faculty Member), Chhattisgarh State Judicial Academy, Old High Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

For respondents :

Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Dr.N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

05/04/2018 1.

Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are similar, both these Writ Petitions stands disposed off by a common order. 2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, his application for seeking permission to take the help of an assistance in the enquiry proceeding has been refused by the enquiry officer.

3.

The counsel for the respondents today makes a statement before this Court that subsequently the respondents have taken a decision to permit the petitioner to grant the permission to engage an assistance except a lawyer. It has been decided that in the event if the petitioner makes a fresh application before the enquiry officer for engaging an assistant in the departmental enquiry on behalf of the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the enquiry officer.

4.

In the light of the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the respondents, both these Writ Petition stands disposed off. 5.

The petitioner shall on the next date of hearing before the enquiry officer move a fresh application in respect of taking assistant in the departmental enquiry on his behalf and the same shall also be decided by the enquiry officer if possible on the same day. 6.

With the aforesaid observation, both these Writ Petitions stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Sumit JUDGE