1 2026:CGHC:11232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1599 of 2019 Koko S/o Shri Dhoba Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 26, Paraspani, Bartunga Koriya Police Station- Chirmiri, District- Koria, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chirman-Cum- Managing Director, Secl, Seepat Road- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Chimiri Area, Kurasa Sub-Area, Secl, District- Koria, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Senior Manager (Mining) Bartungahil Under Ground Mines, Sub Area Chirmiri, District- Koria, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 09.03.2026 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question orders dated 09.02.2019 & 15.02.2019 (Annexure-P/06) and also seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities to quash the departmental proceedings pending against him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 09.02.2019 has been issued by the Enquiry Officer himself SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 whereby he made changes in the list of witnesses to be adduced by the Management/Department and, therefore, the same is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. As such, the impugned orders (Annexure-P/06) are liable to be set aside and the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner also deserves to be quashed. He relied upon the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram 1 and Ram Prakash Pal v. Chairman, UPSRTC 2 to bolster his submissions. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition being merit less. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. This is third round of litigation before this Court. The petitioner has challenged order dated 09.02.2019 on the ground that it has been passed by the Enquiry Officer himself, however, according to Annexure- R/8 Shri Hirendra Singh, Senior Manager (Mines), Chirimiri Sub-Area has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and order dated 09.02.2019 has been passed by the officer posted as Senior Manger (Mining)/Mine Superintendent, Bartunga Hill Mines, Chirimiri Underground Sub-Area, who has earlier issued charge-sheet (Annexure-P/03) to the petitioner and, as such, change in list of witness has been done by the competent authority. Therefore, change in witness is in accordance with law and it 1 1974 AIR SC 2335 2 (2018) 2 ADJ 298 : (2018) 4 AllWC 3952 3 cannot be said that the same has been done by the Enquiry Officer himself. So far as order dated 15.02.2019 is concerned, the same is only an information with regard to appearance and participation of the petitioner in the enquiry proceeding on a given date and time, which period has already been lapsed and, therefore, the same cannot be given effect too at this stage. As such, for the aforementioned reasons, the challenge made by the petitioner to orders dated 09.02.2019 & 15.02.2019 (Annexure-P/06) sans substance and is hereby rejected. Furthermore, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the departmental proceedings pending against him is also hereby rejected for the simple reason that there is nothing available on record to show that the said departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner sufferes from illegality or perversity. Even, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the matters of Bhagat Ram (supra) and Ram Prakash Pal (supra) are clearly distinguishable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly rejected. However, it is needless to say that the Enquiry Officer will make endeavour to conclude the department proceedings pending against the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if