COUKr OF CHHA'rTISGARH AT BILASi PETmOiNER WDENTS WRm'ETITlONISl No. 2032 (rf2008 Gopa! Yadav Son of Gajadh.ar Yadva. aged about 52 ysai's, Post : Ssnior Ovemiaii in S.E.C.L. Churcha Collierv Distt: Korea. (C.G.) ^nprsc'T rc1 Vi^K&U-S 1. Chief Genera! i'vlanager, S.E.C.L. Bai3<:Utithpur Area, Dist: Korea (C.G.) 2. Deputy Chief PersoEinel Manager, S.E.C.L, Baik.uBthpur /wesi, Dist: Korea. 3. Sliri Ashok Kumar Goswamv. Sub .Area •t.j-..,.;^^,^.^-. r'^^-,~^ty^ r^-Jl-'^.-r.. T^^*. ^;-,^.'s-t .iviFiii^ger, i.-iTLirciiSL L/oiiisr^'', uiST: is^ores,. 4. Shri V.V.Iver. Electrical aud Meehamcal Engmeer, Chureha Colliety, Dist: Korea ('C.G.) Enquin Ofiicer. WRrr pEi'raoiN UNDER AR:ncL£226 OF 'I'HE coNS'rrru'noiN OF INDIA Smt Aiiju Ahuja, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Sliri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocats v.dth Ms. 'Rinki TamrAair, Advocate for llie respondent No. 1 an.d2. OMAL 01WER (Passed oa 13m day of Augiist, 2008) 1. I.A. No. 4. .'his is an application for amendment. The application is rejected. 2. By this petition. the petitioner seeks for tfae foilowing reliels: "(i) That the Honourable Hish Court mav kind!v be pleased to cjuash Amexure P-1 dated 22.10.2007 and tlie entire departaiemal proosedicgs as void ab (ii) That the S.espondents-autlionties be directed not to harass the co- worksr wiio is hclpiii.g' tlis pstiticrnsr iii iiis dspfuliiisiital eiiyuiry P'S •&•'•" ('iii') 'Iliat thfi ResDondents-autfaorities be directed 'to give opportu"itv fo erogs-cXcUi'iiiis 'tl3©witiisss Oitiis iiiisiiStgsii'i^D.t yiicl so AIKO tlss coiiipis.iiit. (iv) Thatthe departmental enquiiy. ifany, be done in a fair and impartia .tiiai:dier. ('v) Anv o'fher reiiefwhich tliis Honourable High Court mav deem fit and prc'per niay aiso be graated in favour ofthe pcSitioner. (vi) Cost ofthe petition may kmdly be iiraated.' '•^. 3. Leanied counsel aouearing for the respondents 1 asd 2 submits that fhe departi'nental enquiry has been concluded aiid the final order has beea passed on 02.94.2004 aad punislBnent tfasreofjias also beesi imposed. Thus, the relief sousht for by t!ie petitioaer has beco.me imructuous, as 'the same casmol be adjudicated when fhe departmen'tal eaquin,'' has been concluded, eulmmating into passmg ofthe final order. 4. Accordinglv- the petition is dismissed as havin.e become infmctuous. However, if anv erievance survives, fhe petitioner is at libertv to question the final onjer raisine all the issues as have been raised herein, if so advised. No order asto costs. l.A. No. 1. application for interim reiietYsta;y, stands disposed ot. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge