Chandrashekhar Belchandan vs Commissioner, Chhattisgarh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 700 Chatt

                                            1

                                                                                NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      Order Sheet
                                  WPS No. 992 of 2023
•   Chandrashekhar Belchandan S/o Late Shri K.S. Belchandan Aged About 52 Years
    Presently Working As Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division
    Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
                                                                        -----Petitioner
                                         VERSUS
1. Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Head Office Paryavash Bhawan,
   Sector-19, North Block, C-19, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Dharmesh Kumar Sahu (The Then Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board))
   Presently Posted As Managing Director, Warehousing Corporation Limited, Nava
   Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                    -----Respondents

02.02.2023 Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate with Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Heard.

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for accepts notice on

behalf of Respondent No. 1, hence, process fee is not required to be

paid for issuance of notice to respondent No. 1.

On payment of process fee, issue notice to Respondent No. 2.

PF be paid as per rules. Notice be made returnable within three

weeks.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, which is an application for grant

of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that while issuing the

charge-memo to petitioner, there is non-compliance of the sub-rule 2

of Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control &

Appeal) Rules, 1966. He submits that after issuance of order of

suspension, before making up mind that the enquiry is required for

allegation levelled against petitioner, no show-cause notice is issued

to petitioner.

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1

pointed out the document Annexure P-3 filed in the writ petition and

argued that in reply to the charge-memo petitioner has only mentioned

that as there is stay in the writ petition against the order of suspension

dated 05.01.2023, therefore, the departmental enquiry proceedings

cannot be continued and not raised any other ground. He places

reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Union of India vs. Upendra Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357;

Union of India & Anr. v. Ashok Kacker reported in 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC

180; State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr. reported

in 2010 (13) SCC 311; and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others

v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 in

support of his contention to state that petitioner is not entitle for interim

relief.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner

that no show-cause notice under Section 14(2) of the CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1996 has been issued, purely as an interim measure, it is

directed that the departmental proceedings may go on but the final

order shall not be passed till the next date of hearing.

List this case after four weeks.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Pawan