Kunwar Singh Nagesh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8020 of 2019 Kunwar Singh Nagesh S/o Late Shri Mulchand Nagesh Aged About 37 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.), At Government Primary School Udanti, R/o Village Mainpur, Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mainpur, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Akshara Amit, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer With Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/10/2019 1.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the enquiry report (Annexure P-1) submitted by the respondents.

2.

At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of WPS No. 1747/2017 decided on 12.4.2017 along with other connected matters, the present writ petition may not be sustainable as this Court on earlier round of litigation had granted the petitioner a liberty to approach this Court in the

event of an adverse order being passed. There was also an interim protection given to the petitioner for a period of one month from the date the order would be passed.

3.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court is reluctant to entertain the present writ petition as of now. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit his reply to the enquiry report and also make submission to the authorities concerned who in turn shall take into consideration the contentions which the petitioner raises in his defence both before the enquiry as well as in the written submission that he would be submitting to the concerned authority. Authorities concerned are also expected to take into consideration all these contentions before passing a final order.

4.

With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit