Harishankar Rai vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):-

10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal.

10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to writ of quo-warranto against the Respondent No.12, asking that under which authority of law and selection, he has been appointed as Lecturer (Agriculture) and further be quashed the appointment order Dt. 29.06.1996, prepared by Respondent No.12 and respondent authorities be directed to restrain the Respondent No.12 not to work on the post of Lecturer (Agriculture).

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to register appropriate police case against the Respondent No.12, as Hon'ble Court just fit and proper, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 12, namely, Ramkumar Pathak secured appointment on the post of Lecturer under the Tribal Welfare Department in the year 1996 on the basis of forged documents. He further submits that though respondent No. 12 was not selected but he was appointed to the said post on 29.06.1996. He contends that various complaints were made against him by the petitioner before respondent authorities but no heed was paid. He further contends that as per reply filed by State, only departmental inquiry has been contemplated against respondent No. 12 and no FIR has been registered yet. He prays to allow this petition.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 12 submits that Ramkumar Pathak has already retired from service, therefore, no writ can be issued against him. He contends that if petitioner is aggrieved, he may take recourse to law.

4) Learned State counsel submits that departmental inquiry which was initiated against respondent No. 12 remains pending as relevant documents were called from the State of Madhya Pradesh as appointment was made in the year 1996.

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6) In this petition, petitioner has made serious allegations with regard to appointment of respondent No. 12 to the post of Lecturer in the Tribal Welfare Department. As informed by Mr. Pali, respondent No. 12 has retired from service as in the year 2017 itself, his age was 61 years. Further, the department had initiated departmental inquiry against respondent No. 12 which remains pending.

7) With regard to registration of FIR against respondent No. 12, if in the inquiry, it is found that respondent No. 12 had secured employment after submitting forged documents, the State would be at liberty to take appropriate action in this regard.

8) Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has already retired from service, a writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued by this Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.