1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4477 of 2018  S.P. Tiwari S/o Late J.P. Tiwari, Aged About 64 Years (Ex- Registrar Of Bastar Vishwavidyalaya) At Present Working As Assistant Professor In Government Danteshwari Women College, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Through Its Secretary, Ghadhi Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of High Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Station House Officer, Thana City Kotwali, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Bastar University, Through Its Registrar, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Jadalpur, Dharampura, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Santosh Singh, S/o R.N. Singh, Proprietor, Cybernet System, Shop No. 22, Ekatm Parisar, Bjp Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate along with Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey 2 Order on Board 07. 02.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 96/2017, whereby the State Government has been directed to initiate an enquiry against the petitioner, who was posted as Registrar on deputation and against other two officials namely, Heera Lal Naik and then the Vice Chancellor Shri Dilip Vasnikar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a demand was placed for the supply of 65 computers before respondent No. 5 by the University. He would further submit that proper sanction was obtained from the concerned committees. He would also submit that respondent No. 5 supplied computers to the University but payment could not be made within reasonable time; therefore, complaints were made by respondent No. 5 before various authorities. He would further contend that a complaint was made before Lok Ayog making serious allegations of demand of commission by the petitioner and two other officers of the University. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 conducted an enquiry and recommended the State Government to initiate a departmental enquiry. It is further argued that the business transaction has been given criminal colour by respondent No. 5. It is stated that respondent No. 1 should have not entered into a private dispute between two persons having business transactions. He would pray to quash the order whereby an order has been passed by respondent No. 1 to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has already retired from services and retiral dues have not been paid due to the order Annexure P/1 passed by respondent No. 1. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would fairly submit that the outstanding amount of 65 computers supplied has 3 been received. 4. Mr. Neeraj Choubey, counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that the decision with regard to supply was taken after obtaining a due permission from the Executive Council. He would further submit that the outstanding amount of respondent No. 5 has already been paid. 5. Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would submit that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and two other officers. He would further submit that an enquiry was conducted and the sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and other officers and thereafter, a decision was taken and respondent No. 1 recommended the State Government to initiate an enquiry against the petitioner and two other officers. He would also submit that there is a serious allegation of demand of commission. 6. Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, counsel appearing for the State would support the order passed by respondent No. 1. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No. 1 would reveal that on the basis of the oral submission made by complainant and his witnesses, an order to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner has been passed. The department failed to produce clinching evidence to demonstrate that there was any demand of bribe or commission. 9. Respondent No. 1 being a quasi judicial authority was required to adhere to the principle of natural justice. In the absence of any authentic document or evidence, the allegations were found proved by respondent no. 1. 10. It appears that respondent No. 5 made a complaint just to recover the 4 outstanding amount. The outstanding amount of respondent No. 5 has already been paid and now he has no grievance against the petitioner and other two officers of university, which clearly establishes that the complaint was made with the intent to recover the outstanding amount of computers. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. 12. Though there is no prayer with regard to early payment of retiral dues but since the petitioner is a retired Government Servant, therefore, the State authorities are directed to settle the pensionary claim of the petitioner expeditiously. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant