1^' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH PETITION No. 2-<C B3 OF 2004 PETITIONER ^ M. F. Ansari, aged about 41 years, ..•""^4 s/° Late shri M. H. Ansari, presentiy -•:<''*%?^*' Posted as Principal (Grade-II), '^.y'^y' Industrial TraininQ Institute, x^' ^'. ^:^^'\ '^^^" N 'l'^-'"' Industrial Training Institute, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) •^&' RESPONDENTS Versus .-;^^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education and Manpower Pianning, D. K. S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, ^FC?^ Chhattisgarh, Raipur. ,W^A ['^ ^^D'mt Director, Dsrectorate of Employment and Training, '^-•' Chhattisgarh, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •^ -:'.^^€?rtr XI-HC—78 ;^Er ^TqMq', ^Tnp:-q^, -i^rray ....^.;..?.:.........a.fc.cb.3.. ^•qr ^^? -^q^ 20/01/2005: - Shri Sameer Behar learned counjsel forthe petitioner. Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned itate/respondents, on advance copy. Heard on I.A. No.5946 of 2004 ^/hich is an application for urgent jiearing. The matter is taken up on Boaifl. Hence, I.A. No.5946 of 2004 ^tands disposed of. Heard on the question of admissjon ofthis writ petition. The petitioner is working as Pr|ncipal Grade-11 in the Industria! ITraining Institute, Jagdalpur, district Qastar, C.G.. The submission of ;he learned counsel appearing for the ^roceeding was initiated against the p^titioner on 09/06/2000. Copy of jthe show cause notice is filed as Ailinexure-P/1. After show cause |iotice, a charge-sheet was also issi|ed vide Annexure-P/2 and the petitioner was called upon to give h ^ ft^f ^^m^^itii Govt. Advocate, for the Ipetitioner is that a departmentai s reply within fifteen days. In fesponse to the said charge-sheet thje petitioner submitted his reply I ' 1 jdated 14/07/2000 vide Annexure-P/3. | Learned counsel appearing for ^he petitioner submits that thereafter rjo action has been taken by the lisciplinary authority and the departm^ntal proceeding is still pending (With them. He further submits that a r^presentationwas also filed vide lAnnexure-P/4. Though the petitione|- has prayed for quashing the proceeding of the departmentai enqL<iry in this writ petition, but the pearned counsel appearing for the petitjoner makes a IJmited prayerthat T XI-HC- -5^n ^irsn^pT, •gT^R^, tera^; l^-p- ^^^ ^w (1rt^^) ^^W^T-i^N? ^ ^^^ x'< .^ ^G •y y ^' •^- ^ -fe^ ^- the disciplinary authority may be dir^cted to confiplete the departmentat enquiry within the stipulated period ^o that the matter may come to an end forever. Learned counsel appearing oppose this limited prayer at the pre-i fd>r the State/respondehts does not s|dmission stage. In the opinion of this Court ei^ds of justice would be served if a direction is given to the enquiry officjer and the disciplinary authority to dispose of the pending disdplinary pl-oceeding against the petitioner as early as possible preferably within ^i period of eight months from the date of filing of the copy of this order No.2689of2004. ^long with the copy of Writ Petition Consequently.it is directed tl^at the petitioner shall file a copy of this order along with a copy of Wri Petition 2689 of 2004 before the disciplinary authority/enquiry ofRcer ^ithin a period of fifteen days' from today and on such documents bejng filed, the said authority shall dispose of the departmental proce^ding of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of eight months from the said date of production of this order. | With the aforesaid observ^Jtions, the petition stands finally disposedof. Let certified copy ofthis order jse supplied as per rules.^j- SAJ^S^a .^^: ^v^^