Chattisgarh High Court
Babulal Kehri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5531 of 2022
• Babulal Kehri S/o Late Shri S.S. Kehri Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Goura, Post
Dharampur, Police Station And Tahsil Pratappur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director General Of Police (Dgp) Police Headquarters (P H Q), Sector 19, 1st
Floor, Police Station And Post Rakhi , Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. Superintendent Of Police (S P ) Ofce Of Superintendent Of Police (S P).
Surajpur, Distt Surajpur Chhattisgarh
4. Commandant Ofce Of Commandant, 13th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed
Force (Caf), Bango, Distt Korba Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
7-
15-09-2022 Mr. Abhishek Pandey with Ms. Laxmee Kashyap, counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Dy.A.G. for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.1 of 2022, which is an application for grant of
interim relief.
The petitioner was retired from services on the post of Deputy
Commandant on 30-6-2020 and was charge sheeted on 12-1-2021
which reads as under.
^^NRrhlx<+ 'kkklu]
x`g¼iqfyl½ foHkkx
ea=ky;
egkunh Hkou] uok jk;iqj vVy uxj
@@vkjksi&[email protected]@
Jh ckcwyky dsgjh] rRdk- mi iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼vtkd½] ftyk lwjtiqj] gky lsokfuo`Rr mi
lsukuh] 13oh- okfguh] Nlcy] ckaxks dksjck ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi fuEukuqlkj gSa%&
%%vkjksi%%
^^Fkkuk pkanuh ftyk lwjtiqj ds vijk/k dzekad [email protected] /kkjk 376 Hkk-n-fo- ds izdj.k esa
ihfM+rk dk /kkjk 164 tk-QkS- dk dFku ntZ djus ,oa tkfr izek.k i= cuokus esa dksbZ lkFkZd
iz;kl u dj izdj.k dks vuko';d :i ls yafcr j[kdj vius drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh]
drZO;foeq[krk ,oa xSj ftEesnkjkukiw.kZ d`R; dk ifjp; nsukA^^
¼vij eq[; lfpo egksn; vuqeksfnr½
NRrhlx<+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls]
rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj
¼eukst JhokLro½
voj lfpo
NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] x`g ¼iqfyl½ foHkkx
Thereafter, on 17-6-2022 Enquiry Officer has been appointed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initiation of
enquiry after retirement without approval of the Governor is against the
Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976
(for short, the Rules 1976"). To buttress his contention, he seeks
permission of this court to refer to the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court passed in WA No. 270 of 2022 ( Veenu Chaudhary vs. State
of Chhattisgarh and another) wherein the Division Bench of this Court
has passed the order, the relevant portion of the order reads as under.
"14. Rule (2)(b)(i) of the Rules 1976 mandates that
no disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated save
with the sanction of the Governor and therefore,
question of grant of post-facto approval under the
provisions of Rule 9(2)(b of the Rules 1976 does not
arise.
15. The event indicated in the charge sheet relates to
the period from 06-01.1984 to 20.04.1994 and
21.04.1994 to 17.10.2006 ie., more than four years
before institution of the disciplinary proceeding, which
is prohibited under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules 1976.
16. In that view of the matter, the present
departmental proceeding instituted on the basis of
charge sheet dated 25-4-2022 cannot be sustained in
law. No doubt, liberty was granted by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 13-1-2022 in WPS
Nol. 2238 of 2022, enabling the authorities to take
appropriate action against the petitioner in
accordance with law and on its own merits. Grant of
such liberty does not enable the authorities to act in
violation of the Rules in force".
In this case, the State counsel has sought time to file reply. This
case was listed on 24-8-2022 and on that day this court directed the
State counsel to file reply on the next date of hearing and the case was
directed to be listed on 15-9-2022. Today when the case was taken up
for hearing, State counsel prays for time to file reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prayer for
interim relief may kindly be considered today itself.
In absence of any reply, it is not proper for this court to consider
prayer for interim relief, even otherwise, grant of staying the enquiry
proceedings would amount to granting the final relief which cannot be
considered at this stage as it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan
Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and others, reported in
(1985) 1 SCC 260 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para
5, the relevant portion thereof is extracted as under.
"5. We repeal and deprecate the
practice of granting interim order which
practically give the principal relief
sought in the petition for no better
reason than that a prima facie case
has been made out, without being
concerned about the balance of
convenience, the public interest and a
host of other relevant considerations".
Even otherwise, the law with regard to interference in the enquiry
proceedings has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
the interference in the enquiry proceeding is not appreciable as mere
charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of
action because it does not amount to an adverse order which effects
the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person
having no jurisdiction to do so.
Hon'ble the Division Bench of this court has passed the order
after considering the reply filed by the State and unless the return is
filed, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be examined and in
absence of reply, it is not a fit case to grant interim relief.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2022 deserves to be and is hereby
rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file further
interlocutory application after submission of reply filed by the State.
List this case after four weeks.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
