'"-;'•'^^^; -:.- / BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHH^JCTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) t WRIT PETITION N0. "2^3 ~?-/2006 PETITIONER ^ ..^'. ^'./^y ^^ .^ «• :y- '*.' Laxnii Narayan Dubey, aged •^ about 46 years, son of J.P. Dubey, posted as (F'ravar Grade) Selection Grade Assistant Professor, Economic Govt. College, Rajiv GancU-u Governinent CoUege, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) _ /.. VERSUS - RESPONDENTS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretaiy, Departinent of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ( 2. The Director, Higher Education ^^ Departnient, Science CoUege Parishar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Coininissioner, Higher ^--"Education Department, Science CoUege Parishar, Raipur (C.G.) ^fi 4. The Joint Director, Higher , Education, Directorate, Science ^W CoUege Parishar, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 5. Principal, Rajiv Gaadhi ,- Governnient Arts aad Corunierce CoUege, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6. R.P. Tandon, Assistant Professor (presenfly In-charge Principal), e^!fs^SsSS^!S^ 2 i %. Rajiv Gandhi Goveminent Arts and Coininerce CoUege, Loroii, District BUaspur (C.G.) 7. The Station House Ofdcer, Police Station - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ' ; ; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND /_.QR ANY OTHER WRITS OF LIKE NATURE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR S.B J^on'ble Mr; Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Wdt Petition No.2037 of 2006 Petitioner Resoondents versus Laxmi Narayan Dubey State of Chhattisgarh & others 'IY' ' Present: Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish 6upta, Deputy 6ovt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7. Shri Rodian Dubey,counsel for -ttie respondent No. 6. ORDER (Passed on 4th September, 2006) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure P/l) and the order dated 24.11.2cx)5 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner VMS not given the charge of the Principal despite being senior most Professor in the Rajiv fiandhi Sovernment Arts and Commerce College, Lormi. 2. The respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 in their return submit that the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Thus, the next senior most Assistant Professor/respondent No. 6 was given charge as the Principal of the Rajiv Soaidhi Sovernment Arts and Commerce College, Lormi. 3. According to leamed counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 ond 7, the responsibility of the Principal is more and ^?^%^^^ administrative in nature. The person against whom the departmental enquiry is pending for remaining abant on the basis of forged documents, connot be given the charge. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the departmental enquiry is pending since 2.7.2002 and has not been concluded as yet when the taw provides that the departmental enquiry be concluded within a period of one year and the petitioner is being subjected to humiliation on account of the departmentail enquiry, pendin9 for last more thoai four years. 5. Be that as it moy, a writ in the nature of direction to the reqiondents for appointing 1he petitioner as In-charge, Principal of Rajiv Sandhi Sovernment Arts and Commerce College, Lormi cannot be granted, os admitt-edly, the departmen-tal enquiry is pending against the petitioner. However, in •the facts and circumstonces of the case, the respondents No. 1 to 5 ond 7 are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingty, the writ petition stonds disposed of with the above direction. Bablu [w'l\ Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge '•lb^