Disposed
Gopal Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh HCWPS/903/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.…
What the court decided
AI extract
CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 903 OF 2016
Gopal Chandrakar son of late Balram Chandrakar aged about 32 years resident of Netaji Chowk Shyam Bazar Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Kale and Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A.G.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
01/04/2016
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that by order dated 03/12/2015, petitioner has been
2
subjected to suspension and charge-sheet has been served and departmental enquiry has been instituted. He would further submit that charges framed in this charge sheet and charge sheet issued earlier and concluded by order imposing punishment both are one and the same, therefore, present second departmental enquiry is not maintainable in law and deserves to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has not filed his reply to the charge-sheet, therefore, the petition is premature and the petitioner is free to file reply raising all such grounds in his reply.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be allowed to raise all the grounds which are raised in this petition including question of similarity of charges and non maintainability of second departmental enquiry before the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Prayer is fair and reasonable, if such a question is raised before the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority would do well to consider and decide the said question in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made
3
clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.
5. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Tiwari
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to raise question of maintainability of second departmental enquiry before Disciplinary Authority in Writ Court.
Gopal Chandrakar
State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department
The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur
The Collector Raipur
The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Arang
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court