High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/7098/2016dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 7098 of 2016 Rajendra Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Chhotelal Shukla, Aged About 40 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Champa, R/o Shankar Nagar, Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Directorate Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 3, First Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Anjana Khakha Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Salkan, Block Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 19/01/2017 Heard on admission.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the enquiry report prepared by respondent-authority and also direction issued for lodging FIR on the alleged irregularities in the matter of distribution of school uniforms.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence whatsoever nor any irregularities. He submits that the fact finding enquiry is not correct and there is no specific

-2role alleged against the petitioner to indicate that he has committed any offence punishable under any Law, yet a direction has been issued to lodge FIR.

3. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was conducted under the direction of the authorities in the matter of distribution of school uniform in various schools. In the preliminary enquiry, various irregularities have been found and on that basis, direction has been issued to lodge FIR. At this stage, this Court would not enter into whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not. If any offence is registered against the petitioner, it will always be open for him to take recourse to remedy available to him under the Law.

4. Accordingly, with the liberty as aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Sd/-- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen