(^^2T7/— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. AT- BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S} N0. C<-fC° OF 2006 PETITIONER \^^ ^sy^ e^c-'' ^ /I'\ •' \ ^'.\y ^.i 'N.P. CHOUDHARY, AGED - 54 YEARS, SON OF LATE N. K. CHOUDHARY POSTED AS - DISTRICT AUDITOR, AT - 0/0 JOINT DIRECTOR (PANCHAYAT & SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BILASPUR, R/0 KUDUDAND, BILASPUR, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (C. G.) Av~ RESPONDENTS VERSUS /- ^ STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE , D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT & SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CHHATTIGARH, H. Q. - MAHANADI KHAND, RAIPUR. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. Writ Petition Under Article - 226 &-Z2f of ConstLtutiQnj?^ Indla "y XI-HC-22 sn^rq^ R-ij* sn^r THfer Gowri ^"^ ?s?^ll<l<l<'f<<, OTn«'is,Ri<ii<riy 9 9 _^s.m.^^ STT^T ^(TTS^ ffJ^ET 29-11-2005 Shri R.K. Kesharwani, ci|iunsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Go^/t. Advocate for the State/respondents. Heard. Learned counsel;,for thj enquiry initiated against the pe( has not been passed. He fprther contended that the petitioner was on deputation, but information reg^ bythe borrowing authorityto th< From the papers anne) clear that disciplinary authority the proceedings are at fag en4 parent department is concerr) raised the said issue in his enqi After final order the petit) the course of arguments are enquiry proceedings by steppj However, if exigency arises the| future. In view of the above, accordingly dlsmissed. Consequently, M.(W.).P *]'l(T<-l41-f WIcff ff teA rfSRCTt ^.ifff^trsn^T e petitioner contended that the departmental itioner has taken a long time and still final ordei irding departmental enquiry has not been given authority who lent his services. :ed along with the petition and pleading, it is agreeing with the report of enquiry has sen/ed second notice proposing punis|iment to the petitioner who not only repiied the show cause notice, but also p^rticipated in personal hearing. It appears that So far as non-furnishing of information to the |ed, petitioner concedes that he has already |oner has right to appeal. The grounds raised in not substantiai enough to interfere with the |ng in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. petitioner shalt be at liberty to take recourse in he petition is iiable to be dismissed and is ^0.4700 of 2006 stands disposed of. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (^^fe^) '^