Jamuna Prasad v. South Eastern Coalfied Ltd.,

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7549 of 2019

1. Jamuna Prasad, S/o Late Jaimangal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o House No. 106, School Para Pashchim, Village Vishnupur, Tehsil: Baikundpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., G. M. Office, Baikunthpur, Koriya, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

3. Sub - Deputy Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Charcha Colliery, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Deputy Chief Personal Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Charcha Colliery, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For State :

Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23.09.2019

1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the impugned chargesheet Annexure P-1 dated 22.03.2019.

2. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the reason that, the charge-sheet was issued more than 6 months back. The petitioner has also duly submitted his reply to the chargesheet. The disciplinary authority on due consideration of the chargesheet ordered for holding Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner had

-2also voluntarily participated in the departmental enquiry and the evidences are now being recorded but suddenly now the present Writ Petition has been filed on the ground prima-facie no case is made-out

3. So far as the interference in challenging to the charge-sheet by a High Court is concerned, it is by now well settled principle of law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not substitute itself as another fact finding agent/agency nor can this Court have power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to hold a roving enquiry threadbare looking into the evidences which are adduced by either side to reach to a conclusion, whether the misconduct has been made or not.

4. Given the said fact, the petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and also participated in the departmental enquiry, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

5. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands rejected. However, the Enquiry Officer is expected to consider all the documents and evidences which the petitioner has or shall produce before the Enquiry Officer in the course of inquiry and only after due consideration and appreciation of these facts and evidence would he submit the enquiry report.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul/Jyoti