Smt. Sidhdhi Dube vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2127 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WA No. 173 of 2022

        Gregory Tirkey S/o Sebestian Tirkey Aged About 57 Years The
        Then Additional District And Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Presently
        Posted As Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Jagdalpur, Bastar.,
        District : Bastar
                                                                ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
     1. High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodri,
        Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
     2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Law,
        Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     3. District And Session Judge Cum Enquiry Officer District Court
        Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari,
        Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Respondents

For Appellant:                     Shri T.K.Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2/State :        Smt. Astha Shukla, Govt. Advocate.

             Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &
                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

                          CAV Judgment / Order
31.03.2022
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.2022

whereby the petition preferred by the appellant to quash the departmental

enquiry, which was proposed, was dismissed at the threshold.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the memo

dated 13.03.2020 issued by the District Judge would show that although

there is no allegation of judicial dishonesty, but orders were passed in an

arbitrary manner, therefore, if there is a mistake in passing of judgment,

then it should not be open to a judicial officer for initiating enquiry of like

nature. Thus, as per the law laid down by the High Court in the matter of

Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad reported in AIR SC

2007 88, the enquiry, which was proposed to be initiated, be quashed.

4. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge as also the

documents attached with the original petition. The memo dated

13.03.2020 purports and it is alleged that while deciding the case, the

appellant found the accused guilty for offence under Section 354 of IPC

and sentenced him to undergo only 11 days and the accused were

released as undergone whereas the minimum sentence prescribed was

one year. Further, the memo would reveal that in a case under Section

354-A of IPC, the jail sentence was cancelled and fine of Rs.25,000/- was

imposed. Further, as per Section 304-A of IPC, if the guilt was proved and

charges were established, then the accused should have been sent to the

jail, but was not done in cases. Likewise, in a case under Section 304-B of

IPC, the appreciation of evidence was not properly done by the appellant.

Similarly, it was alleged that a case arises out of Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act was dismissed in default. Therefore, on these grounds the

enquiry is contemplated against the delinquent.

5. After perusal of memo, it would show that allegations were

imputed, which are required to be gone into during the course of enquiry.

At the threshold, if the enquiry is stopped, then the imputation of such

charges still remain unanswered. What would be the final finding of the

enquiry officer cannot be presumed at this stage. The learned Single

Judge has already observed that during the course of enquiry, proper

opportunity of hearing would be given to the petitioner/appellant.

6. At this stage, we refrain ourselves to pass any observation as it

may prejudice the case of either side. Therefore, after going through the

entire order of the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain

this appeal.

7. In view of what has been stated above, we dispose of this appeal

accordingly.

                        Sd/-                                   Sd/-

                 (Goutam Bhaduri)                       (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                     Judge                                    Judge




Anjani