Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 678 (PAT)

Sudama Singh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam

2007-04-03

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner moved this Court when he was served a chargesheet dated 23.4.2004 contained in annexure-1. The writ application was for quashing this chargesheet and to stay the departmental proceeding in the matter. 3. This Court is unable to accede to the request of the petitioner because it is already settled in law that it is not open to the Courts or Tribunal to prevent continuance of any disciplinary proceeding by interfering at the level of chargesheet itself. 4. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter has molded his prayer during the course of submission that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the enquiry officer. But he only seeks a direction upon them that he be given fullest opportunity to defend himself in the matter. The petitioner also prays that all the necessary documents and evidence which the disciplinary authority is relying on should be made available to him so that he can work out his defence in this regard and he is not taken by surprise. 5. Insofar as this submission of the petitioner is concerned, respondents had already annexed list of documents and the witnesses. Therefore no open ended order as such as is required in the matter. It is hoped and expected that the authorities will prima facie rely on the evidence which is part and parcel of the charesheet which has been issued to the petitioner. If any further witness or evidence is brought against the petitioner that will be after due information to the petitioner well in advance. 6. The petitioner further also prays that the enquiry officer be directed so that he can use the assistance of a competent person as provided for under Sub-Rule 8 of R. 14 of the C.C.S. (CC & A). The petitioner, in fact, wants assistance of a lawyer in presentation of his case. This demand of the petitioner shall be examined by the respondent authorities in the light of rule indicated above and the decision must be communicated to the petitioner so that he can build up his defence based on the availability of the person who can render him assistance in the matter. 7. This demand of the petitioner shall be examined by the respondent authorities in the light of rule indicated above and the decision must be communicated to the petitioner so that he can build up his defence based on the availability of the person who can render him assistance in the matter. 7. This Court directs the petitioner to render full assistance in the enquiry and it is hoped and expected that the enquiry shall reach its finality in the case within a period of four months from the date of communication or production of the copy of this order. 8. Liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to act in the matter depending upon the findings which may be recorded by the enquiry officer in the matter. 9. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with the above direction.