i^ .^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT B1LASPUR HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'Bi-E SHRI SUNSL KUM^ SINHA, J. Writ ADpeal No.243 of 2009 Saaun Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Madho Singh Thakur, age about 49 years Additional Office Asstt Gr II O/o The Junior Enginesr CS Power Distribution Co Ltd., BijaDur, D/Centre 4 6 7 Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co.Ltd., Through - joint Secretsry (Personal) - II Head Quarter Dangajiya, Rai frtf\ ^wO; SR Bandhey, Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn, CS Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Balod, Tah - Balod, Distt Dura (CG) Kalish Narnaware, Ex-Superintending Engineer (Durg Circle) CS Power distribution, Co. Ltd.,Durg Tah & Distt Durg (CG) now - Executive Engineer (City Dn CS Power Distribution Co Ltd., Durg Tah DistS Durg (CG) Azad Kumar Jain, (Read) Ex-Chief Engineer, (Raipur Region) CS Power Distribution, Co Ltd., RaipurTah & Disft Ralpur (CG) Now — Advisor of CS Power Holding Co Ltd,, Danganiya, Raipur Tah & Distt Ralpur pp ^o"? HR Sahu, Office Executive Engineer (O & M) Dn., Power Distribution Co.Ltd., Balod Tah— Balod, Distt Durg (CG)Nowworking as OA Gr 1 O/o the Assistanf Engineer fTown) S/Dn CS Power Distribution Co.Ltd., DurgTah DisttDurg (CG) SR Dhruw, Senior Accounts Gfficer (Retd) CS (CG) Power Holding Co Ltd., Dui^ NS Thakur, Section Officer (Retd) 0?o Executive Enginssr 1 (O&M) Dn QS Power Distributlon Co Ltd., Balod Tah BaiQd.Distt Durg (CG) Li lita^fa&a Appeal to Division Bench under Section 2 f11 of the Chhattisaaiti Kiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act Present : Shri RK Gomasta and Shri CR Sahu, counse! for the appeiiant. •th $S'" January', 2010) foilowing ludgment of the Court was passed by iupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the appetlant are heard on admission. 2) Appetlant Sagun Singh Thakur has fiied this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 11.05.2009 passed in WP(S) No.2407/2009. 3) The.appeltant in his writ petition was seeking quashing ofthe charae-sheet dated 10.05.2007. 4) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration ofthe submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the writ petition was filed by the petltioner after a period of two years after issuance of the charge-sheet aaainst the petitioner, declined to interfere in the matter. 5) It is not in dispute that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner now is in progress. The petitioner is not challenging the competence of the Enquirv Officer. We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this intra Courtappeal. 6) .-. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. r Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Smha Judge