Dismissed

Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Sept 2024WPS/3926/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Development Extension Officer challenged a charge sheet and departmental enquiry over unauthorised appointments in cooperative societies. The court held the petitioner's defence could be agitated within the enquiry itself and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Interim order discharged; respondents to conclude departmental enquiry within three months if not already concluded.

Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:37117

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3926 of 2022

¶6

1 - Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) S/o Late Shobhnath Bind Aged About 56 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administrative Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Registrar, Cooperative Society Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society Bilaspur, Opp. Collectorate, Old Composite Building, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society Bilaspur, Opp. Collectorate, Old Composite Building, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer

¶15

({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

20/09/2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:-

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

I. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and charge sheet dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) and departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶21

ii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Assistant Development Extension Officer at Takhatpur and was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty. It is further submitted that one Ganesh Ram Loniya made a complaint against the petitioner with regard to the appointment made by the petitioner in Krishak Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ghutku and Seva Sahkari Samiti Pondi. On the basis of which a preliminary enquiry was conducted and gave its report. It is further submitted that in the report it is clearly mentioned that respondent No.4 herself admitted that oral approval was given to make alternate arrangements for smooth functioning of the work of the aforesaid societies the appointments were made. Therefore, the initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be struck down.

¶23

State counsel opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not entitled to make appointment without approval of the higher authorities and in this context, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. He submits that if the petitioner is innocent, he can prove his innocence in departmental enquiry and at this stage this Court cannot appreciate the defence put forth by the petitioner.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner appointed certain persons in the aforesaid society without any written instructions from the higher authorities. A defence was taken that on oral instructions, the appointment was made which is also found place in the preliminary enquiry. This Court vide order dated 16.06.2022 allowed the departmental enquiry to go on but it is ordered that no coercive steps be

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Since the departmental enquiry was initiated in the year 2022 and in all fairness it should come to the logical conclusion, the defence which is raised by the petitioner in this petition can be very well agitated by him in the departmental enquiry and if the Enquiry Officer is satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, it may take appropriate decision in this regard. This Court at this stage cannot sit to judge the defence put forth by the petitioner, it can only be ascertained at the stage of departmental enquiry , therefore, this writ petition sans merit is dismissed.

¶28

Interim order dated 16.06.2022 is discharged. The respondents are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of three months, if it has already been not concluded.

¶29

The present petition thus dismissed.

¶30

Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2024.09.27 10:46:05 +0530

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

({Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Parul

Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Prasad Bind (G.P. Bind) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhya Rani Denjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ramoo Ram Dhruwe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Preeti Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramgopal Sahu R. G. Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sadhuram Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh