Murlidhar Jaiswal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5044 of 2018 Murlidhar Jaiswal Late Kewal Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Mamta Tent House, Shiv Talkies Chowk Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home ( Police ) Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Police Headquarter Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

5. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Advocate For State :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/08/2018

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition primarily is for quashment of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner and also the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 14.05.2015.

2. The relief sought for is on the ground that the allegation against the petitioner does not exist, as the dispute between one Rajesh Agrawal and Fouzia Ali wife of Irshad Ali has been settled and compounded and the said does not exist any further and there is no point in continuing with the departmental enquiry, so far as the petitioner is concerned.

3. Perusal of the record would show that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner since 2015 onwards. The inquiry

proceeding is still going on. It is settled position that once when a departmental enquiry has been initiated, it has to reach to its logical conclusion and for that the respondents would have to conclude the inquiry at the earliest and the inquiry officer would have to give a finding on the evidence which comes before the Inquiry Officer.

4. Only on the ground that the disputing parties have settled their grievances out of Court by itself may not be a sufficient ground for dropping of the departmental enquiry.

5. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondents are directed to ensure that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is concluded at the earliest within an outer limit of 6 months.

6. It is expected that the Inquiry Officer shall also conduct himself in a fair and reasonable manner taking into consideration the basic principles of natural justice and the evidences which comes before him.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved