SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED – Respondent
WPS 3299/2021



Advocates:
['Arjit Tiwari', '', 'Ashwin Panickar', 'KRITIKA JANI', 'RASHIKA SONI', 'A G', '', 'VINOD DESHMUKH']

-1-

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Writ Petition (S) No. 3299 of 2021

1. Ravindra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o

Village- Datima, Tehsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur,chhattisgarh. Presently

Residing At Village- Bhatgaon, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan, Police Station-

Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted at

Establishment Section as Billing Clerk, Bhatgaon Area.

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing

Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Bilaspur Head Quarters, Seepat

Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Director Personal, South

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur Head Quarters, Seepat Road,

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through General Manager, South

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District- Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh.

4. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Senior Manager, Mining

Pandavpara, Colliery Manager, Bhatgaon Area, South Eastern Coalfields

Limited, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

5. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Area Personnel Manager,

Pandavpara, Colliery Manager, Bhatgaon Area, South Eastern Coalfields

Limited, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Dr. NK Shukla, Sr. Advocate along with Shri

Arjit Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondents

:

Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

06.07.2021

.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned second show

cause notice dated 12.06.2021.

2. The second show cause notice is being challenged primarily on the ground

that the petitioner was already subjected to departmental enquiry at the

first instance and where the enquiry officer has submitted his report

exonerating the petitioner of the very same charges and the subsequent

the enquiry report, on the basis of which second show cause notice has

been issued is just in self contradiction to each other and therefore the

-2-

very initiation of the second show cause notice and the further proceeding

of the departmental enquriy should be stalled at this juncture.

3. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the allegation against the

petitioner was that of getting appointment by impersonating himself. The

petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry by issuing a charge

sheet at the first instance on 23.07.2014 and a departmental enquiry was

initiated and an enquiry report was submitted on 18.08.2015. The enquiry

report submitted by the enquiry officer was not accepted by the disciplinary

authority, who, in turn, ordered for a fresh de-novo enquiry vide order

dated 06/07.02.2018. The said order was subjected to challenge in writ

petition WPS No.4161 of 2020. This court dismissed the said writ petition

upholding the action on the part of the disciplinary authority in ordering for

a de-novo enquiry. The said order of this court was put to challenge in a

writ appeal vide Writ Appeal No.161 of 2021 which finally was withdrawn

on 18.06.2021. Now the disciplinary proceedings stands concluded and an

enqiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority who in turn has

now issued the second show cause notice dated 12.06.2021 which is

under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Considering the fact that the second show cause notice is on the basis of

subsequent enquiry which was held after the disciplinary authority had

ordered for a de-novo enquiry and the second show cause notice now has

been issued on the basis of the enquiry report that was submitted by the

enquiry officer, this court is of the firm view that this is not the stage at

which the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. The law so far as

interference at the show cause notice stage is by now well settled. The

petitioner h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top