.»»w"L^ .<5^$^^ ^I^'^' "- ^^!NalE EENC! I?t THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH, AT BILASPUR (C,G.) W.P.(S)No. t^T- 2007 Petitioner ... /^ Premnarayan Tiwari aged,50 years Son oflate Shri Sambhu Prasad Tiwari Assistant Director (Horticulture) District Durg (C.G.) Ve rs u s Respondent .. .^. 1 . The State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofAgriculture, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. / 2. The State Govemment ofMadhya Pradesh, / ('^ ^^j^ through the Principle Secretary (Horticulture), / / --\»^ Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) «? y^' ^ ..v,^6' c^. yy ^<-° ^- Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. The Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Government ofChhattishgarh, Raipur <y 133<f WRIT PETITION UNDER AJBTICLES 11613:£T of the CONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS w- ^is(>^gs^^;^5^;B^6i^^^:^^^^^^^^^^B^'!%^;^S^^^^^% ISS«&<K- fSSSfffS^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents Wnt_Petition (S) No^667 of 2007 Premnarayajl Tiwari Versus The State Govei-ament of Chhattisgarh others WRITPETITON UNDER ARTICLE 2.26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnfliotl-i J.) Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Siugh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/ State. 1. 2. 3. (Passed on this 18th day ofjaauaiy, 2010) With fhe consent oftlie parties the inatter is heard finaUy. Shri Yashwaat Stngh Thakur, leanied Deputy Advocate General, on tlie basis of the averments niade ia the retum dated 11,1.2010 submits thatvide letter dated 14.12.2009 fhe Enqu^ Officer has iofonned to fhe Dii-ector that the enquiiy is akuost complete, only Gn.sl argumieats are to be heard but as tfie inatter is pending before fhe Hon'ble High Court, fherefore, tlie proceedings have been stayed. The grievaiice of fhe petitioner is that the enquin' is pending for fhe last about ten years and the enquiry officer has been appointed after a period of aboiit eight years, fherefore, tiie enquiry raay be quashed. The enquiry is ahnost coinplete aiid as such no furtlier adjudication is rgquired iu this petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court ia State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhaldsh.an1 observed fhat if the enquiry is not coiuplete wifhia the reasonable tiine, it may prejudice fhe officer. The Court has to ' AIR 1998 SC 1833 ..-*. ^ ^s^ 5. I- balance these two diverse conditions. In fhe case on haad, siiice ttie enqiiiry is at the stage of coiupletion, it is not necessaiy to consider fhe niatter aud to quash fhe enquiry proceedings at fhis stage. In view of fhe above stated facts, the enquiry officer inay proceed wifh fhe enquiry and niay subiait report to fhe disciplmary aufhorit}', as early as possible, preferably wifhin a period of two raonfhs froin the date of i^ceipt of a copy of fhis order. Thereafter, the petitioner inay take appropriate steps, if so advised, ifthe order is passed agamst llim. In view of fhe foregoing, this petition staads disposed of. No order asto costs. SatishK. Agnihotri Judge Thabir