Dismissed

Smt. P. Paul v. The Registrar General

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jan 2024WPS/310/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the appointment of an inquiry officer against a Judicial Officer. The Court held the writ not maintainable without a prior challenge to the charge-sheet, dismissed the writ, quashed the stay order, and granted liberty for fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make fresh representation before disciplinary authority; interim stay order vacated.

Smt. P. Paul Vs The Registrar General — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 310 of 2018

¶5

Smt. P. Paul W/o Shri Peter Paul, Aged About 51 Years The Then 2nd Additional And Sessions Judge, Korba, Presently Posted As Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶9

District And Sessions Judge / Inquiry Officer, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary Law, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhatisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner	: Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2	: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State	: Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

25.01.2024

¶16

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.11.2017 by which the Registrar (I & E) has appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner for certain allegations.

¶17

The record of the case would show that she was served with the charge-sheet dated 12.09.2017 wherein the following charges were levied against her which are reproduced herein below:

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

“1. That, You, Smt. P. Paul, Judicial Officer, were posted as II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Korba from 12/05/2014 to 14/05/2015.

¶20

That, during your tenure of posting as referred above, on 24/12/2014, the bail applicatin no. 1030 of 2014 (Vinay Pratap Singh & another V/s State of Chhattisgarh), under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, was filed by Shri Amarnath Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of accused i.e. Vinay Pratap Singh & Vijay Pratap Singh, for grant of bail in connneciton with crime no. 446/2014 registered at Police Station CSEB Chouki Korba for commission of offence u/s 294, 506, 454, 384, 342, 392/34 of IPC, you granted bail to both the accused on 27/12/2014, without any substantial change in the fact and circumstances of the case, whereas 3 separate bail application no. 663/2014, 898/2014 & 962/2014 filed by the accused were rejected on 30/08/2014, 14/11/2014, 08/12/2014 respectively by you and also ignoring that the bail application filed before Hon’ble the High Court was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 19/12/2014, which was well within you knowledge. You granted bail in violation of settled principles of judicial discipline and the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 21/01/2014 in M.Cr.C. No. 4705/2013 and also law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi (Smt.) V/s State of Bihar & Others (1994) 2 SCC 8.

¶21

You, while doing so, either willfully and deliberately committed an act of judicial impropriety or acted with gross negligence and recklessness while discharging your duty as judicial officer and thereby committed an act which is unbecoming of a judicial officer and grave misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, punishable under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. ”

¶22

The petitioner has submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 23.10.2017 wherein she has assured that she will do the

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

Judicial work with diligence and carefulness and prayed for stopping of the enquiry.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Disciplinary Authority without considering the reply has appointed an Inquiry Officer on 14.11.2017, this memo is being assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition mainly contending that the order passed by the petitioner is bonafide, as such initiation of inquiry is bad-in- law.

¶26

Learned counsel for the High Court would submit that against the order appointing Inquiry Officer the writ petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that the petitioner has even not challenged the charge-sheet, as such, the petition is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of present writ petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the State would support the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 and would pray for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

The petition is being filed against the memo dated 14.11.2017 by which the Inquiry Officer has been appointed and this Court vide order dated 10.01.2018 has stayed the enquiry proceeding as such the proceedings were kept in abeyance for more than 6 years, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the disciplinary authority regarding initiation of disciplinary action

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

against the petitioner.

¶32

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merit of the allegations levied against the petitioner and it is for the disciplinary authority to examine and consider the representation afresh without prejudice to the fact that the Inquiry Officer has been appointed earlier in accordance with law

¶33

The interim order passed by this Court on 10.01.2018 is vacated.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶36

Bhumika

Smt. P. Paul v. The Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P. Paul v. The Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Atish Kumar @ Babalu Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Paro Vs Smt. Chandar

Sukhan Vs Laxmaniya

Bihari Rajput Vs Krishna Dewangan

Laxmi Prasad @ Bhuru Vs State of Chhattisgarh