Pandu Kumar Mahipal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the app
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5439-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 62 of 2025 Pandu Kumar Mahipal S/o Late Gyanik Mahipal, aged about 54 years Occupation- Constable, Government Railway Police, R/o Railway Police Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General of Railway Police Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent of Railway Police Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate through video conferencing For respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant appearing through video-conferencing as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondents. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.31 10:41:35 +0530 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act,
Decision
2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.7912 of 2024 (Pandu Kumar Mahipal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner / appellant was working on the post of Constable cum Driver in the office of respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. On 01.02.2021, while driving a vehicle bearing registration No.CG/03/3764 (Tata Sumo), the petitioner lost control of the vehicle and dashed another vehicle bearing registration No. CG/04/MC/9915, which was being driven by Khilawan Sahu. As a result of the accident, RI Kuldeep Singh, Head Constable Manmohan Singh, and Constables Tikeshwar Sen, Sandeep Minz, and Anurag Barwe sustained injuries and RI Kuldeep Singh and Head Constable Manmohan Singh succumbed to their injuries. An FIR was registered on 01.02.2021. However, during the course of investigation and subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, it was found that the aforesaid accident took place due to the negligence of Khilawan Sahu. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against him. The department issued article of charges against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated 3 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charges. Enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed by the disciplinary Authority. The enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted before the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police (Railways), (for short, SP(R), Raipur. Vide order dated 10.07.2024, SP(R), Raipur/respondent No.3 considered the enquiry report and came to the conclusion that the documents submitted during the course of departmental enquiry were not exhibited. The documents submitted during the course of departmental enquiry and procedures adopted by the enquiry officer were not found proper. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Raipur to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 08.11.2024 changed the enquiry officer and one Smt. Varsha Mishra, Assistant Inspector General of Police was appointed as enquiry officer and she was granted 15 days to complete the departmental enquiry and submit a report. By filing WP(S) No. 7912 of 2024, the petitioner has challenged the dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1). The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that during the investigation, Enquiry Officer cannot be changed if he or she was available as prescribed under Section 15(1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule. It has been further 4 submitted that earlier an enquiry was concluded and the report was submitted, which was found faulty by respondent No.3 vide order dated 10.07.2024 and an order was issued to submit a fresh report. She further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2024, the enquiry was already concluded, therefore there was no occasion for respondent No.3 to issue a fresh order for de novo enquiry by changing the enquiry officer and again directing the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry and submit a report within a period of 15 days, therefore, there is no requirement to challenge the order dated 10.07.2024. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the order was passed by respondent No.3 / Disciplinary Authority on 10.07.2024 whereby the matter was remitted back to the enquiry has not been challenged by the appellant. Vide order dated 10.07.2024, the enquiry officer was directed to record supplementary statements of the witnesses and exhibit the documents and there was no order for a fresh enquiry. 5 The order dated 08.11.2024 would reveal that respondent No. 3 has appointed a new enquiry officer and there is no direction to initiate a fresh enquiry and she has been directed to submit a report within a period of 15 days. The appellant / writ petitioner has not challenged the order dated 10.7.2024 whereby the enquiry was remitted back to the Enquiry Officer rather the order of change of enquiry officer dated 8.11.2024 has been challenged, as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra