AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission.
Appellant Santosh Gurung has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 14.10.2008, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5679/2008.
Appellant Santosh Gurung filed the writ petition for the following reliefs.
10.1 That this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of suspension dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure P-1) as well as the charge sheet issued by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 05.09.2008 (Annexure P-5).
2 That this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the suspension order dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure P-1) and charge sheet dated 05.09.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No. 2.
That this Hon''ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate order/direction towards the respondents in regard to the illegal recovery issued against the petitioner.
4 Any other relief, which Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper of the case, may be allowed.
5 Cost of the petition may also be given.
The petitioner, thus, in substance, was seeking quashing of the order dated 23.07.2008 whereby he was placed under suspension and the charge sheet dated 05.09.2009.
The main ground pressed into service in the writ petition for seeking quashing of the order of suspension and charge sheet was that the subject matter of the petitioner''s prosecution in the criminal case in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Durg and the departmental proceedings were the same.
Learned Single Judge on a through consideration of the appellant''s pleadings in the writ petition and the documents filed along with the writ petition found that the subject matter of the petitioner''s criminal prosecution and the departmental proceedings were not the same. Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the appellants writ petition vide order dated 14th October, 2008.
Shri R.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that at least the subject matter of the first charge in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case is almost the same.
On a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet issued to the appellant in the departmental proceedings, we gather that the main charge against the appellant in the departmental proceedings is about his unauthorized absence during the training period from the training camp and breach of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, whereas the subject matter in the appellant''s criminal prosecution before the Magistrate is in regard to the snatching of purse of complainant Neelam Sabrawal.
Thus, we are satisfied that the subject matter of the departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution against the appellant are not the same. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the appellant''s writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.