Ramoo v. South Eastern Coalfileds Limited,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 714 of 2018 Ramoo S/o Shri Sanchano Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 32, New Mines, Post Office Line - Godripara, Post And Police Station Chirmiri, Korasiya Colliery, Chirmiri, District - Koria Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfileds Limited, Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Secl, Seepat Road - Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. General Manager Chirmiri Area, Kurasa Sub - Area, Secl, District Koria Chhattisgarh.

3. Senior Manager (Mining) Kurasiya Colliery, Chirmiri, District Koria Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Deepali Dubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 24/09/2018 Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 1.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2.

The charge-sheet issued against the Appellant became a subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. It seems that due to certain infirmities or shortfalls, the first round of charge-sheet was ordered to be withdrawn and liberty was given for issuance of a second charge-sheet. The second chargesheet issued also became a subject matter of challenge and a third charge-sheet was issued against which a plea is taken that there will be estoppel on issuance of a third charge-sheet, especially, if the Court had not given any leeway or liberty to

do so in its earlier order. The learned Single Judge, while negating such a submission, observed as under:- "4. The said contention of the counsel for the petitioners may not be acceptable for the reason that it is only at the charge sheet stage that the respondents sought for withdrawal of the charge sheet so that a duly constituted fresh charge sheet could be issued. Moreover, if we look into the nature of allegations and the charges levelled against the petitioners, the same apparently are quite serious charges which cannot be left un-inquired or be waived only on account of fact that the respondents in the past have issued charge sheet which were not duly constituted and they decided to withdraw. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner stands overruled.

5. In the light of the submissions of the counsel for the respondents that the management wants to withdraw the present charge sheet under challenge, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in these petitions. The respondents would be precluded from proceeding further with the charge sheet dated 29.05.2018 so far as present petitioners are concerned. However, the right stands reserved for the respondents-management to issue a duly constituted fresh charge sheet, if they so desire."

3.

We are in agreement with the findings and reasons given by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ application and refusing to grant any relief to the Appellant. Enough games have already been played trying to obstruct holding of a departmental enquiry at every stage so that the truth does not emerge. The time has come when the law should take its course. 4.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu