C^1 BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P (S) No. 5-!^ 2/'?' /2009 PETITIONER ^^ p-"\:^ y .Cl' ^y^ '^ Ashok Kumar Sonwani, s/o Late shri Govardhan Lal Sonwani, aged about 41 years, Range Officer, Forest Range, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, R/o. Fprest Colony, Mahurband Para, Kanker, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^[ The State of Chhatlisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Principal Chief Consen/ator of F&rest, Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, Jail Road, Raipur, (C.G.) 3-^ Conservator of Forest, Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur, C.G. 4..,.»--Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada, <- District South Bastar, Dantewada (G.G.) 5. „ Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Dantewada Sub Division, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Ktition (S) No. 5427 pf 2009 Petitioner Ashok Kuinar SoDWani Versus Respondent The State of CIihattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE GONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: HonTile Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Shn A. K. Prasad, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Ms Siuuta Jaui, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDERtOrall (Passed on this 22nd day ofSeptember, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challerigiiig the order dated 25.8.2009 (Amiexure P/1). 2. A bare perusal of the dociuaents appended to fhe petition, it is apparent fhat departmental proceedings were iaitiated agaimst fhe petitioaer on tlie aUegation that while the petitioner was posted as Range Officer, Baraoor, fixim 8.2.2007 to 13.7.2008, he allegedly permitted illegal cuttmg of valuable trees (Iinarti Briksh). Thus, the inatter was enquu-ed by a three niembers cominittee and findit^ substauce iato the atlegations, a notice was issued to the petitioner ou 8.2.2009 (Atmexure P/4) to show cause asto why departtaeutal enquiry be not initiated ^ainst hiTn under fhe provisions of Chhattisgarh Ciwil Services (Classt&cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. By the impugned order dated 25.8.209 (Amiexure P/1) the enquiry of&cer aad presentmg officer have been appointed to conduct fhe regular departmental enquity. ~-J~ r4- :-^-?8; • \ Tbatair 'Z- 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that departiaental enquiiy caiinot be iaitiated agaiust the petitioner m view ofthe circulars dated 6.8.2003 and 12.6.2008. 4. Be fhat as it niay, without goiug iato the nature of fhe circulars, stace fhe departmental enqiiuy is pending consideration, ttus Court is of fhe view that fhe departinental enquiry shoiild not be iuterfered vrifh at thls stage. However, the petitioner inay bring any docum.ents, whatsoever, according to hini, is proper; beforc the enquiry oiEBcer. 5. With fhe above observation, this petition is dismissed. No order, asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge