HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P, (S) Mp. 6893 of 2007 PBTITIONBR /-- RESPONDENTS Lalit Kumar Naik, aged about 48 years, s/o Shri Ishwar Naik, Occupation Service, at present workiag as Office Assistant, Grade III, CUiattisgarb State Electricity Board Sariya, Distt. Ra^arh (C.G) R/o viUage Bar Block Baramkela Tahsil, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). Versus 1 CUiattisgarh State Electricity Board through its Chainnaa, C.S.E.B., Headquarters Daaganiya, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 2 Karyapalan Yaatri, (SU Evam San) C.S.E.B. Division, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). 3 Atrikt Adhikshan Yautri (Su. Evam San), C.S.E.B., Division Raigarh, Distt. Ra^arh (C.G). 4 Sahayak Yaatri (Vltt.) Sub Division, C.S.E.B., Saraugarh, Distt. Ra^arh(C.G). 5 Kanisht Yautri, C.S.E.B., Sanya, Distfc Ra^arh (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Roop Naik, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (26.11.2007) SUNIL KUMAR 8INHA, J. Heard on aduussion. The petitioner, who te woridng as Office assistaat Grade- III, ia C.S.E.B., bas challenged fhe validity ofshow cause notice dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure P-5). He has also prayed for a direction to pass an. appropriate order after consideruig his reply dated 14.8.2002 which he had fUed after receiving show cause notice. A perusal ofthe record-woiild shdw fhat on 23.7.2002, a show cause notice was issued to fhe petitioner by the C.S.E.B. saying that why tbe arnual iacrements wifh cuiuulative eflect Wj'. (Sl Wo. 6893 of 2007 »- inay not be withheld for the aUegations raade against the petitioner ia fhe show cause notice. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner submits that fhe petitioner had filed reply to fhe show cause notice on 14.08.2002 but no final decision has been taken tiU date and the matter is stEU pending before the conceraed authorily iu the fomi of departmental enquiry. He subinits that ia these circumstaaces, after lapse of about 5 years, this petition has been filed for quashment offhe notice as also for the direction. Siace fhe factual aspects have been raised iu the show cause notice, fherefore, I aui not inclmed to interfere wifh the notice at fhis stage. But, lookmg to fhe fact that a reply was already fijed on 14.8.2002 aad about 5 years have lapsed after issuauce of show cause notice aud the enquiry is still pending, as stated by leamed counsel for the petitioner, I deeru it appropriate to dispose ofthis petition with an observation that if fhe enquiry pendiag against the petitioner has not been disposed of tiU date, it shall be concluded by fhe conceraed authorities at fhe earHest preferably not beyond ttie period ofsix inonths froin fhe date offilmg offhe certified copy offhis order before the conceraed authority. With fhe above observations, this petition staads finaUy disposed ofat fhe inotion stay,e itself. /!_—__ C.c. as per rules. Sd/. Sunil KumarSinha Judge