Gregory Tirkey vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1247 Chatt

                                                 1


                                                                                    NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                   WPS No. 1591 of 2022
          1. 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)
                                                                         ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
          1. High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodri, Bilaspur,
          2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Law, Mahanadi
             Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
          3. District And Session Judge Cum Enquiry Officer, District Court Dhamtari,
             District Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

10/03/2022

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the charge-sheet dated

22.06.2021 and the initiation of the departmental enquiry by appointment

of an Inquiry officer vide order dated 14.02.2022.

2. The primary challenge to the disciplinary proceedings is on the ground

that the entire departmental enquiry has been initiated at the behest of

observation made by the concerned District Judge under whom the

petitioner was working as an Additional District & Sessions Judge while

he was posted at District Dhamtari. According to the petitioner, from the

observation of the learned District Judge there was no allegation of any

doubt created on the integrity of the petitioner and that the entire charges

are pertaining to the lack of knowledge and the lack of the understanding

of the petitioner and also as regards the ignorance of the amendment to

the statutory provision that have taken place during the intervening

period.

3. This Court at this stage is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the

simple reason that it is only at the disciplinary proceedings stage, where a

charge-sheet has been issued and the Inquiry officer has been appointed

to conduct an inquiry on the charges that has been leveled against the

petitioner. The petitioner would get all the rights and liberty to lead

evidence in support of his contention and submission that he intends to

bring so far as the charges that have been leveled against the petitioner.

4. The law in issue is also well settled that the Court should be slow in

interfering with the proceedings at the disciplinary proceedings stage as

no prejudice as such has been caused to the petitioner except for the

issuance of the charge-sheet which by itself is not a punishment or an act

detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner would get all the

chance of disproving the allegation and charges leveled against him and

would also get the opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution

witnesses if any adduced by the respondents.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to

a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ramesh Chand

Singh v. High Court of Allahabad" AIR SC 2007 88. The judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ramesh Chandra" has been

given under an entirely different contractual backdrop, where there was a

specific allegation against the judicial officer of being corrupt and judicial

dishonesty, where there was an allegation that he has received an illegal

gratification of an amount of Rs.30,000/-, whereas no such allegation is

there in the present case and therefore the said judgment is

distinguishable on its facts itself. Moreover in the instant case the charges

relates to judgments and orders of the petitioner as a Judicial Officer

which prima facie was contrary to Law and the Act, thus was said to be

unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

6. The Inquiry officer is expected to provide all fair and reasonable

opportunities of defense to the petitioner in the course of conducting of

the inquiry.

7. In view of the same, the writ petition as of now stands rejected. It is made

clear that the rejection of the present writ petition should not under any

manner influence the mind of the Inquiry officer while conducting of the

departmental enquiry and while submitting his inquiry report.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved