1 / 4 CGHC010315672026 2026:CGHC:38040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6353 of 2026 Bhupendra Kuldeep S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Kuldeep Aged About 51 Years Presently Working As Registrar Hem Chand Yadav University, Durg District Durg C G. R/o B / 102, Gajraj Parisar M. P. Housing Board Colony, Raipur Naka, Durg, District Durg C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Higher Education Of Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C. G. 2. Hem Chand Yadav University, Durg Through Its Vice Chancellor, Raipur Naka, Durg District Durg C. G. 3. Assistant Registrar Hem Chand Yadav University, Durg Raipur Naka Durg District Durg C.G 4. Dr. Neelu Shrivastav W/o Dr. Mahesh Shrivastava Aged About 53 Years Dean Students Welfare And Coordinator Of Inquiry Committee, Hem Chand Yadav University Durg Raipur Naka, District Durg C.G. 5. Smt, Shubhangi, Marathe, Posted And Working As Semi, Skilled Daily Wages Employee, Hem Chand Yadav University, Durg Raipur Naka District Durg C. G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Beck, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr.Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. along with Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Registrar of Hemchand Yadav University, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 16:53:36 +0530 2 / 4 Durg (C.G.), and is aggrieved by the initiation of an inquiry against him vide order dated 29.07.2026 passed by respondent No. 3. He by referring Annexure P-13 submits that as per the applicable statutory provisions, prior approval/permission of the Chancellor, i.e. the Hon’ble Governor, was required before initiating such inquiry, which has not been obtained in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the Inquiry Committee did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, nor was he informed about the initiation of the inquiry. It is submitted that the Inquiry Committee proceeded with the matter in haste and submitted its final report on 31.07.2026, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned inquiry proceedings and the report submitted pursuant thereto are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed. 2. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not in the nature of a departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the proceedings are only a fact-finding inquiry undertaken to ascertain the factual position regarding the allegations against the petitioner and do not culminate in any disciplinary action by themselves. Learned State counsel further submits that the requirement of prior approval/permission of the Chancellor is applicable only where a formal departmental enquiry is sought to be initiated against the petitioner. Since the present proceedings are confined to a fact-finding inquiry, no such prior 3 / 4 approval is required. It is further submitted that the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee is only a fact-finding report and does not determine any penalty or impose any adverse consequence upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the challenge raised by the petitioner is premature and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that the inquiry initiated against him vide order dated 29.07.2026 was without obtaining the prior approval of the Chancellor, as contemplated under the applicable statutory provisions, and that the Inquiry Committee submitted its report without affording him an opportunity of hearing. 5. However, from perusal of Anenxure P-1 it is apparent that the inquiry in question is only a fact-finding inquiry undertaken to ascertain the factual position in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The proceedings do not constitute a formal departmental inquiry against the petitioner and the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee does not, by itself, impose any penalty or entail any adverse civil consequence against him. 6. The requirement of prior approval of the Chancellor, as relied upon by the petitioner, would arise at the stage of initiation of a formal departmental inquiry and cannot be extended to a preliminary fact-finding exercise undertaken merely for ascertaining the facts. Likewise, at the stage of such preliminary 4 / 4 fact-finding inquiry, no right of hearing as available in a regular departmental inquiry can be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of course. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge raised by the petitioner to the fact-finding inquiry and the report submitted pursuant thereto is premature. No case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the event the respondents propose to initiate any formal departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the fact-finding report, the same shall be done strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and after complying with the principles of natural justice. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti