Dilip Hedau v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

o It.,,,-. ..

^Vstlj l^iSs-PSS ^ i^' l'^1^ ^ 3^

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WRIT APPEAL N0.

v\^ /2014 Dilip Hedau, son ofShri l-1atiram Hedau, .aged about 53 years, presently posted as Manager, Hastshilp Vikas Nigam, Banglapara, Uttar Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Thana and Post Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh APPELLANT PETITIONER .ft^o ^.•J'f, ^w^ ^s^ AS-r^;

VERSUS

•:.* RESPONDENTS 1.

State of Chhattisgarh through the (a) Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Thana Mandir Hasod, Post Office Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (•iTB (b) Principal Secretary, Department of Gramoudyog, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Thana Mandir Hasod, Post Office Mandir Hasod, Dfetrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh /?"

2.

Chhattisgarh Hastshilp Vikas Nigam, through its Managing Director, irh Haat Campus, Opposite Mahalakshmi Cloth Market, Thana -Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ggs f^a)^,, (.si,-v^^^,^v AA-u&M yiu^A.I' c-ti-e i APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH UNDER CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006 READ WITH RULE 158(10) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES 2007

f^ K ^..

'i '•<';'-^ ~^:'

< .1 ^ \, ^>1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE MR.T.P. SHARMA, & HON'BLE MR. I.S. UBOWEJA. JJ W.A.No. 479 of 2014 Appellant Petitioner Dilip Hedau versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others.

Aiabealr1:o Bivision Benc riro:lerSection 2 (1) ofthe ClihattiSgarh High Court (Appeal to Divisibn Bench) Act, 2006 ^ppearance:

Mr. Amrito Das, counsel forthe appellant.

Mr.

Prafull;N.

Bharat, Additional Advocate General forthe State/respGrtdents No. 1(a) and 1 (b). Mr. Ali Asgar, CQUrisel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

O R D E R

(24,12.2014) T.P. Sharma. J The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24.11.2014 passed in W.P(S) No.2492/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge, has dismissed the W.P.

(S)No.2492/2013 along with otherW.P.(S)No.1180/2013. Heard learned counsel for the parties and order impugned perused.

By the order impugned, the writ Court has onlyrefrained itself from quashing the order dated 08.05.2013, whereby respondent has directed for initiation of departmental enquiry against the appellant.

Departmental enquiry is a fact finding procedure to ensure whether an employee has committed

misconduct or not, therefore, by dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality. We do not find any substance in the writ appeal. Consequently, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and is 4.

hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order asto costs.

---_.

Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- Inder Singh tTboweja Judge Vijay