Kaushal Prasad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6420 Chatt

                                       -1-




                                                                                NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            WPS No. 6721 of 2022

   Kaushal Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shankar Prasad Sahu Aged About 44 Years
   Working As Transport Constable At Transport Check Post, Khamarpali, District
   Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                         ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport Mantralaya,
   Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Transport Commissioner, Directorate Of Transport, Block -C, Third Floor, Indravati
   Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Ms. Yogesheri Verma, (Inquiry Officer), Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
   Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Smt. Dirbee Sahu, W/o Kaushal Prasade Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o -
   Laxaman Vihar Colony, House No. A-17/18, Lavan Road, Baloda Bazar, P.S. City
   Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Respondents

20/10/2022 Shri Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard.

Issue notice to respondents.

Shri Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate accepts notice for respondents No. 1 & 2. Hence, process fee is not required to be paid for issuance of notice to those respondents.

Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 prays for and is granted 3 weeks time to file reply to the writ petition.

Issue notice to respondents No.3 and 4 on payment of PF as per rules. Notices be made returnable in three weeks.

Also heard on IA No.1, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of recommendation made by Chhattisgarh State Women Commission (Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog), Raipur, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. He contended that prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, approval of charge sheet was not taken from the competent authority and in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner is vitiated. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner may go on, but final order shall not be passed.

List this case after four weeks.

Sd/-----/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Praveen