1 2025:CGHC:4397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 687 of 2025 • Sanjay Kumar S/o Balkrishna Sharma Aged About 59 Years Assistant Commandant/ Exe. No. 884310116, C.I.S.F. Unit 3rd Reserve Batallion, Bhilai (C.G.) R/o Type I, Building No. B-16, Room No. 799, Mahul Road, Near Ashish Theater, R.C.F.L. Colony, Chembur Mumbai, Maharashtra. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Delhi. 2. Director General C.I.S.F. Central Industrial Security Force, Headquarter, 13 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003. 3. Deputy Inspector General (L And R) C.I.S.F. Head Quarters No. 13, C.G.Os Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003. 4. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarters Central Sector 3rd Reserve Battalion Campus Post Utai, District Durg (C.G.). 5. Assistant Inspector General (L And R) C.I.S.F. Head Quarters No. 13, C.G.Os Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent(s)/Union of India : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is aggrieved by illegal arbitrary, unreasonable act of respondent authorities. That with malafide intention charges has been imposed in such a way, to increase the gravity of charges. That the whole preliminary enquiry was conducted without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the documents was not supplied as demanded by petitioner, which is also part of charge sheet, hence, petitioner could not present in defence. The procedure adopted in enquiry was contrary to the provisions. The 3 respondent authorities had predecided to punish petitioner, therefore, the charges were framed such a faision to give an illusion of great misconduct, whereas the facts of the incident which had happened and the evidence adduced by petitioner, if properly considered by the respondent authorities then there is no question of framed charges against petitioner, the petitioner alleged charges was imposed without affording principal of natural justice. That charges framed against the petitioner is prima facie not made out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after suspension departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for UOI submits that the charge- sheet cannot be quashed, once the departmental enquiry has been initiated and charges were framed. 5. However, the respondent authorities are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of six months and also considering the fact that charges were framed way back on 11.11.2024. 6. The petitioner is having liberty to raise all the grounds which has been raised in this petition before the Enquiry Officer. 7. With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Raghu Jat Judge