MAHENDRA KUMAR DHOKE Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition is challenging the legality, validity and the propriety of the charge sheet dtd. 27/4/2009 served to the petitioner on 28/5/2009 vide Annexure-P/1, whereby the departmental enquiry has been initiated by the respondent No.3, the Collector, Narayanpur against the petitioner branding the impugned order as arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law. The petitioner is also challenging the letter dtd. 12/10/2009 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 for completing the departmental enquiry initiated by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Junior Technical Assistant and his appointing authority, disciplinary authority and terminating authority is the respondent No.2, the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Warehousing Corporation by virtue of Regulation 22 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (Staff Regulations), thus the Collector could not have instituted the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned charge sheet (Annexure-P/1) and the consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel would support the impugned order.