IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3331 of 1997 HARENDRA PRATAP CHAUHAN, SON OF SRI PARMESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GANGAURA, POLICE STATION- BIHARIGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS SHOP MANAGER, GRADE-III, NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LIMITED, SHOW ROOM, PURNEA. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, MERKETING, NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LIMITED (WBABO), 8B, LAL BAZAR, CALCUTTA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION, WEST BENGAL, ASSAM, BIHAR & ORISSA, 7, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD, CALCUTTA- 700013. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIOINAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.P. VERMA ROAD, PATNA- 800001. 5. THE AUDIT PARTY, THROUGH THE MANAGER (FINANCE), NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LIMITED, CALCUTTA. 6. THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER SHRI S.N. PRASAD SETH, RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LALA BABU KA MAKAN, GAYA (GOYAL BIGHA). ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar. Advocate. For the Respondent Corporation : None. 13 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Union of India. Although copy of the brief was served on the then counsel for the Union of India which is evident from the receipt dated 3.4.1997. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as a Shop Manager, Grade-III in the Purnea Show Room of the National Textile Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He is aggrieved by the office order dated 8.12.1993, 2 Annexure-1 passed by the Divisional Manager of the Corporation placing him under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding with observation that chargesheet follows. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date the proceeding which was initiated pursuant to the suspension order has not been concluded and he is languishing in suspension. There is no counter affidavit filed in the matter by the Corporation. Even otherwise suspension cannot be allowed to continue for 16-17 years, accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioner continues under suspension even today he be released from suspension by the Divisional Manager who has issued the impugned suspension order forthwith. The proceeding initiated against the petitioner be also concluded in the light of the averments made in paragraph-20 of the writ petition as till date petitioner has not been served with any punishment order in the light of the order dated 4.11.1996, Annexure-10 directing de novo inquiry. 3. Writ application stands disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)