t. r\ A/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER a;>: ^-.^^•^^- ^^y '^y-y-^p"c ^•^^<. '.•^r W.P.NO'13 /_2002 RAJENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF LATE SHRI RAMPATI SHUKLA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JANPAD PANCHAYAT, PATTHALGAON, DISTT. JASHPUR, CHHATTISGARH. VERSUS ^<-" y' RESPONDENTS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH : SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH. COMMISSIONER, BILASPUR DIVISION,DISTT. BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) MUNKURAM SARTHY, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT-JASHPUR(C.G-) M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENCH AT RAIPUR, THROUGH : REGISTRAR, SAT RAIPUR (CG) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH : ^'^v -ni ^<- SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH. l/"'".-y<A RESPONOENT No. 6 s Collector,Jashpuc,Distt. Jaehpur(c • li- -M/,^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE - v\ ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ?'!-HC—'78 .KIc'n'CT T?!'R; ?'°!'3?T^T'rtqT ' ?•••%''•S£S?:^:.^|J1 :r--[ tSVu^ -S^ ^TPTOTO, ^ffl~^T<s, T^fray ,.^.?.....lLaS3..1.a.%-.. SII^l-q^? (''pT^?) TOfrn -Hftg •'aii^ -&iviswn-8esdH— ^ipfeqr-f •qpRff -? fe^ <Sn?re ^? sjfg'q snt^i Hon'ble Shri A.S.V. Moorrtiy, C.|J. and Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, Jl 27.7.2004 Shri A.N. Bhakta, counse] fijir the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dep^ity Advocate ©eneral for the State/ rsspondents No.l, 2 and 6. Heard both the counsel. Even after the writ petitijsn is filed no enquiry officer hae been cppointed. We are also informed, under suspension since last morej produced on record, which shows continuation of suspension of the ^etitioner is in the pub!ic interest. Tlierefore, we direct the with immediate effect. With this direction, the pe^ition stands disposed of. even the presentin9 officer has also not been nominated. In fact, the w^rit petitioner submitted his explanation about three years back. According to the circu!ar dijrted 22/23.8.1990 issued bythe er-stwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, if the e^iquiry is not completed within a period of one year, then the concerned D^P01''1'"1®'11' i3 r'equired to conduct review after every six months. We are irjformed that in this case, the petitioner is than three years and nothing has been |that ony review has been conducted,and respondents to reinstate the petitioner Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- L.C:BHADOO Judge Ae\