1 2025:CGHC:34844-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 304 of 2025 Shiv Murti Shukla S/o Shri Ram Pyare Shukla Aged About 56 Years Senior Surveyor (Under Suspension), Bagdeva, U.G. Mine, S.E.C.L., Korba, District - Korba (C.G.), Presently Posted As Senior Surveyor, Gevra Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Colliery Manager Bagdeva, U.G. Mine, Korba Area, District - Korba (C.G.) 3 - General Manager (P&A.) Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Shri Uday Chatterjee (Retd. Deputy G.M.) 731, Indraprasth, Babur Bagh, Post - Rajbati, District - Burdwan (W.B.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : In Person. For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. V.R.Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. Murti Shukla, appellant, appearing in person as well as Mr. V.R.Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 Challenge in this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 is to the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1458/2017 wherein the appellant/writ petitioner had questioned the legality and propriety of the order/memorandum dated 23.01.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Inquiring Authority to enquire into the charge framed against the appellant. 3 The grievance of the appellant was that a retired officer of the respodnent-SECL cannot be appointed as an Inquiring Officer whereas the contention of the respondent-SECL was that it can very well be done and there was no illegality in it. 4 The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced by both the appellant as well as the respondent-SECL dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no restriction for appointment of a retired officer to hold an enquiry in view of clause 28.1 of the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent-SECL. 5 On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 08.05.2025, this Court had observed that the appellant had filed a writ petition being WPS No. 8450/2018 challenging the enquiry report before the learned Single Judge. The said 3 petition also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.07.2025. The appellant had filed another petition being WPS No. 596/2017 wherein he had sought quashing of the suspension order dated 29.10.2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2025. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred which also stood dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025 on the ground that since the appellant was terminated from service vide order dated 28.04.2025, the remedy that was available to the appellant was to file appropriate petition before the appropriate forum. 6 Appellant, appearing in person submits that he has already filed an appeal on 12.05.2025 after passing of the order dated 02.05.2025 in WA No. 289/2025, before the competent authority and the same is subjudice. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent/SECL concurs with the above submission and submits that this appeal has virtually become infructuous as the challenge in this appeal is to the order by which the learned Single Judge has turned down his contention that a retired officer of the respondent-SECL cannot be the inquiry officer. Now since the appellant has already been terminated from service and he has also filed an appeal before the competent authority, this appeal may be dismissed as having infructuous. 8 We are in full agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-SECL and since the service of the appellant itself has come to an end, nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. When the service of the appellant itself has been terminated, the other issues raised by the appellant have become academic. Further, even as per the appellant, appearing in person, he has challenged his termination order dated 28.04.2025 before the 4 appellate authority, we hope and trust that the competent authority before whom the appellant has filed an appeal challenging his termination order dated 28.04.2025, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from today. 9 We further make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent authority of the respondent- SECL shall decide the appeal of the appellant independently, without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove, if any. 10 With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.23 19:46:22 +0530