High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5977/2018disposed off

Pramod Amaltash v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-09-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5977 of 2018 Pramod Amaltash S/o Shri M.R. Amaltash Aged About 39 Years Working As Sub Inspector, Incharge Police Chowki Jalbhandha, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

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

3. Inspector General Of Police Durg Range, 32 Banglow, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Of Police District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

5. Sub Divisional Officer Police, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

6. Sub Divisional Officer Police, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Aparajita Gaikwad, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/09/2018

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the charge sheet dated 19.05.2017 passed by the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground of the charges being fake and issued with malafide intention. Without entering into the merits, so far as the allegations, which have been leveled against the petitioner, this Court does not intend to interfere with the charge sheet for the simple reason that the same has been issued almost about 1 1⁄2 years ago i.e. on 19.05.2017. The petitioner for about 1 1⁄2 years was not aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in proceeding against him departmentally.

3. For the said reason, this Court does not find any strong case for interference. However, though this Court is reluctant to interfere with the charge sheet, but it is expected that the respondents shall conclude the inquiry so far as the petitioner is concerned at the earliest.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the departmental enquiry seems to have been stayed by this Court in the case of one Mr. Deman Chandrakar. If that be the case also, the interim protection granted to Deman Chandrakar would only be applicable so far as the departmental enquiry against Deman Chandrakar is concerned. The said order cannot be taken into account for not proceeding with the departmental enquiry so far as the petitioner is concerned.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved