Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.09 10:52:21 +0530 2025:CGHC:45479-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 489 of 2025 V.V. Malaiya S/o Bhagirathi Malaiya Aged About 55 Years Presently Working As Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division, Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector, District Gariyaband C.G. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, District Gariyaband C.G. 5 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband C.G. 6 - S.K. Burman, Posted As Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband C.G. 7 - S.K. Chandel, The Then Posted As Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband C.G. 2 8 - Rohit Kumar Tiwari, The Then Clerk, Water Resources Sub-Division, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband C.G. 9 - Vikas Dhruw, The Then Sub-Engineer, Water Resources Sub- Division, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.09.2025 1) Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 / State. 2) The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s): “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions, order/orders, thereby directing the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry about the complaints dated 04.08.2025 & 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/8) filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate action 3 against the erring officer/employees for misappropriation of public money. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given”. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer under respondent No. 1 and has since been discharging his duties with sincerity. Vide order dated 21.09.2023, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and posted at Indravati Project Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was relieved on 06.10.2023. Subsequently, by transfer order dated 15.03.2024, at serial No. 26, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Water Resources Sub-Division, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband. By the same order, at serial No. 30, one Shri Kuleshwar was transferred from Fingeshwar to Narayanpur. The petitioner was relieved on 04.04.2024 and submitted his joining before the SDO, Fingeshwar on 08.04.2024. Despite joining, the petitioner was not handed over the charge of SDO. Shri Kuleshwar challenged the transfer order in WPS No. 1889/2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 26.07.2024. Even thereafter, charge was not given to the petitioner. In order to avoid handing over charge, respondent No. 2 cancelled the petitioner’s promotion by order dated 11.09.2024. 4 The said cancellation was stayed by this Court in WPS No. 6673/2024 vide order dated 24.10.2024. The earlier petition WPS No. 6684/2024, filed by the petitioner for handing over charge, was withdrawn with liberty to file a better-constituted petition. The petitioner was also denied salary from May, 2023, compelling him to file WPS No. 8827/2023. According to him, stoppage of salary was a consequence of his complaints regarding corruption by respondents No. 6 to 9. Thereafter, in WPS No. 7390/2024, this Court directed on 05.12.2024 that the charge of transferred post be handed over to the petitioner. On review (RP No. 108/2025), the order was corrected on 08.05.2025. Consequently, respondent No. 2 passed order dated 13.06.2025 directing handing over of charge, which was finally assumed by the petitioner on 16.06.2025. Upon assuming charge, the petitioner inspected records and the work site, and found that without actual execution of canal construction, respondents No. 6 to 9 had misappropriated government funds by preparing false measurement books. While some records were found, other measurement books were deliberately withheld to conceal corruption. Despite repeated written requests dated 11.07.2025, 14.07.2025 and 28.07.2025, respondent No. 6 failed to supply the same. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 04.08.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, and another complaint on 13.08.2025 before respondents No. 4 and 5 with supporting 5 documents. Though the Additional Superintendent of Police summoned and recorded petitioner’s statement on 12.08.2025, no further action has been taken till date. Hence, the present petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of respondent authorities in not taking any cognizance on the complaint of petitioner, is bad in law, being arbitrary and discriminatory. Without doing any construction work over the site/spot, the respondents No. 6 to 9 have prepared measurement book in respect construction of canal within the Sub-Division, Fingeshwar and on the basis of said measurement book, the respondents No. 6 to 9 have embezzled the huge government amount, due to which, the local vicinities are aggressive towards the employee of respondent Nо. 2 department particularly the employees and officers working in Sub-Division, Fingeshwar. He further submits that in order to hide the scandal and corruption, the respondent No. 6 was not giving the charge of S.D.O. to the petitioner, but only after the order of this Court, the charge of S.D.O., Fingeshwar has been handed over to the petitioner. After getting the charge, the petitioner has inspected the records as well as spot and found that without construction of canal at the site, the respondents No. 6 to 9 have misappropriated the public money by preparing the measurement book and withdrawing the amount. After knowledge of above, on 04.08.2025 the petitioner has made complaint before the Superintendent of Police, 6 Gariyaband for conducting investigation. Thereafter on 13.08.2025 the petitioner has also made complaint before the respondent No. 5 along with the documents relating to embezzlement against the respondents No. 6 to 9. On the basis of complaint of petitioner vide letter dated 08.08.2025, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband has directed the petitioner for appearing on 12.08.2025 for recording his statement. Accordingly on 12.08.2025 the petitioner has given his statement before the police authorities, but till date the police authorities have not taken cognizance against the respondents No. 6 to 9. Due to corruption of public money and scandal made by the respondents No. 6 to 9, the local vicinities are facing great difficulties in getting water for irrigation and due to which, the local vicinities are preparing for protest and strike against the government as well as against the employees and officers of Sub- Division, Fingeshwar. The news to the above effect was widely published in local news paper. 5) Learned counsel for the respondents / State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition (criminal) is not maintainable in the manner it has been filed. If the grievance of the petitioner is that the police authorities have not acted on his complaint, the proper and efficacious remedy available under law is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. [Section 175(3) of BNSS] or to file a complaint case under Section 7 200 Cr.P.C. [Section 223 of BNSS] Instead of availing such remedies, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court only to pressurize the departmental authorities as well as
Decision
the police machinery. He further submits that the writ petition has been smartly drafted in the garb of public interest, but in fact, it is an outcome of the petitioner’s personal service-related disputes with the department. The petitioner, having already filed multiple writ petitions in service matters, is now attempting to give a criminal colour to the dispute by filing the present petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 7) In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to non-registration of FIR on his complaint alleging corruption and embezzlement of public funds. It is well settled that in such circumstances, the remedy of the complainant lies in approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. [Section 175(3) of BNSS] or by preferring an appropriate writ petition in the nature of service dispute, and not by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 through a writ petition (criminal) as a substitute for lodging of FIR. The petitioner, having already been pursuing several service 8 related writ petitions, cannot be permitted to invoke this jurisdiction merely as a pressure tactic against the departmental authorities. Accordingly, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under law, this writ petition is found to be misconceived and is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet