HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH, BILA8PUR W. P(St Ho. 7444 ®f2007 PBTITIONBR Dwarika Prasad Siiiyawanslii, aged shout 52 years, s/o late Praja Ram Suiyawaashi, working as Junior Assistaat (suspended) At District Office, C.O. State Civil SuppUes Corporation, Janjgir, District Jaajgir Chanipa (C.G) (C.G) r/o Jarhabl'tatha, Mandir Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bflaspur (C.G). Versus RESPONDESTS 1. C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipiir, fhrougtt the Man^ing Dircctor, Bal Ashsam Campus, Kucheri Chowk, Raipur (C.G). 2. The Managing Director, C.G. State CivU SuppUes Corporation Liiaited, Bal Ashiam Campus, Kucheiy Chowk, Raipur (C.G). WRIT PETmtON UMDER AKTICUS 226 OF THBS CONSTITUIOM opnroiA Aopearaace: Sbri Prakasta Tiwari, Advocate, appears on behalfofSlin R.K. Kesharwani, couasel for fhe petitioaer. Shri Suineet Verraa, P.L. appears Ibr the State/ respondents. ORAL ORDER (17.12.2007) SUKIL KUMARSINHA. J. Heard on adinission. The petitioner has challenged the. suspension order dated 26.9.2005 (Annexiire P-1) and has ^so challenged the departniental enquiiy pending against him, for which the. charge sheet dWBNt Annexure P-3 was issued to hiin. I^eamed counsel for the petitioner argiies that. the pctitioner was suspended on 26.9.2005 biit the enquiry has not heen concluded ti1l date and the petitioner has also not becn re.instated, W.P.<SWo.7444/2007 therefore, the ilnpiigFLed suspension order be set aside and a direction be issiied to conclude tjie enqniTy at the earliest. 1 have heard leamed counsel fbr the petitioner at lengtti and have also gone through the contents ofthewrit petition as also the docuiaents filed along-with tl-ie writ petition. So far as quaahjng of the iinpiigned order is concemcd, it cannot be qiiashed only on the grounfi that the cnqiiiry is stifl pending. The siispension was eflected in contemplation of eTiquiiy and iniTaediately after siispension, the enquiiy was initiated and,as stated by leamecl counsel for the petitioner, inany witnesscs have been exanained aiid only the report eta., is to be rBccived by tlie disciplinaiy authorily. Apart froia fhe above, the contents of the suspension onler as also tlie chai^e sheet would sTiow tjtiat tbe allcgations pertaining to the factual aspects have T)een raised/liy the pctitioner and fhe petitioner has also dispiited those aspects, tlierefore, it would not be possible for this Coiut to enterfain such petition, at th.is stage, because a findmg bas to be FRconled by the eaqiiiry ofBcer after giving opportunily to both tlic parties as envisaged under the niles. Therefore, this petition is dismissed at fhis stage. However, it is observF.ri that the enquuy officer/ disciplinaiy antliority as also the concemed authority of tlie respondents would tiy to dispose of the enquuy at the earliest so that the inatter naay come to an end. With fhe aforesaid observatioTis, this petitioTi stands finally disposed off. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /Rao/