^ \£^- SlNVLt" enKws G IN THE HIGH COURTOFCiIHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fS)No.1).T( / 2011 PETITIONER •/ ^!^^ •yy^> ^ f j^-' ^•\<1* <3_^ ^' P.M. Kashyap S/o Shri M.M. Kashyap Aged about 43 years, In-charge Superintending Engineer O/o the E-n-C, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) VER S U S RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Public Works Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department Sirpur Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) ^"^ \^ ^J!^*-: '<^7.«^ WRIT'PETITION, UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON$TITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner above named, respectfully beg to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERfS) : As shown in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT(S) : As shown in the cause title. ^wsf^y 's^^^s'SEa^'ssi^ls&t'em^esw^ssea 'c: HLGJICOURTQFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritsnker Diwaker) W.P.(S)No.1161 of 2011 P.M. Kashyap VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and another Shri P.S. Koshy, counse! forthe petitioner. Shri AV. Sridhar, PL for the State/respondents. O RD E R (27.09.2011) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the validity of the charge sheet dated 16.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) Issued against the petitioner regarding payment of excess amount of Rs.4,12,07,366/-. 2 . The petitioner has prayed that all the charges leveled against him may be dropped as the same are not tenable. It has also been prayed by him that the respondents be dlrected to conclude the enquirv within three months so that the career of the Detitioner mav not be affected adyersely. 3. In She return filed by the respondents, it has been stated that on 08.10.2010, while initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner, the Enquiry Qfficer was directed to conclude the enquiry within three months. Further it has been stated that the departmental enquiry has already been started but would take some time to be comDleted. 4. Shri Sridhar submits that the next date of the enquiry is 25.11.2011 and all the efforts would be made to complete the same as expeditiously as possible. 5. In view of the above statement made by the State counsel, counsel for the petitioner submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served if direction is issued to the respondents to conclude the enquiry within some time frame. 6. The pre-sent petition is dlsposed with a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry against the ^ i:;ii:iiii(luy*ii,«itiiui;lUiinauainiiiiiini ^ffSW-iSi SE-' --": 2-- (.° petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a periodofsix months from the next date of hearina i.e. 25.11 .2011. 7. It would be the duty of the petitioner to apprise the Enquiry Officer and the department about the passing ofthis order. 8. Govt. Advocate is also obliged to send copy ofthis order to the respondents. s<u- Priya , vvVSs^et ||ri»m ^D^ake( ¥(y^ud^ £:!SS^^eS5;^^'^'^^^f"