C^ ^.^7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : CG : "BILASPUR WRIT^PETITION N0 (S) : M3S\ OF 2009 PETITIONER ^^e .^^- y..^' .••"c.^A'N'6--'' .^?\'^Y>.-'i''" .. ^•"l.-.^v"" •^" '^<,*••' ^'.^ RESPONDENTS ^ ^ Gopal Sharan Sharma aged 54 yrs, s/o Shri R.S.Sharma, Assistant Accounts Officer ^^?x <^ .'*^t\ -** Municipal Corporation - Koiba Distt- Korba CG -VERSUS- 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through: The Secretary to tfae Goverrunent of C.G. Nagariya Niyojan - avam- Vikas Vibhag: Mantralaya Raipur CG ^yls^ ••''f^ ^ ^ <^ v\ ..'.^/.^A /,"\"<Sl^. i^^| KJa,. ^S^IS^i^ ? "-' . ij vy 1; <. '•r,.v.. r-? :1 ^ '<" // ':\ 'y^.' *^~ -T>S\( ^a,.. i'6;.@ ^••i\^5t ^' USS! S ^^t° /^ 2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Through: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Koiba CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH£OURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WPJT PETmON (S) No. 4221 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Gopai Sharan Sharma. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & another. y;i^^^ WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDL4 SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anurag Daval Shrivastava. Advocate fbr fhe petitioner. Sbsi Alok Bakshi, Govemment Advocate for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondeiit No.2 ^2. 3. 4. (Passed on 22°'ldayof September, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2006 (Gopal Saran Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & another), passed an order on 4 Oetober, 2006 directing fhe respondents i.e. the State and the Municipal Corporatioa, Korba to conclude the eaquiry as expeditiously as possibie, preferably within a period of . two moafhs fi-om the date ofpassing offhe order. Despite the clear dn-ection, the respondents have taken their own time i.e. about three years, without caring for fhe order passed by ftlis Court. It is mfomied at the bar by Sliri Baksfai that fhe enquiiy has been eoncluded and a isport thereon has atready been filed. Bs that as it may, if the enquir}' officer has ah-sady filed the enqairy report, why the disciplinar}7 autfaonty is sittmg over fhe enquiry report for a period of tfarse years, is unknown. If fhe report has already been filed, fhe respondents are directed to take decision as expeditiousty as possible, preferably within a period ofthree weeks fi-om today and pass appropriate orders in accordasce wifh law. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. §()/_ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Airit