9- Cf^^TToi^. IN THE HIGH COVS'E OF JODICATOKE: CHHATTISGARH: BIIASFOR WRIT PETITION NO(S) : l^3 1 OF 2006 PETITIONER ^. Gopal Saran Sharma <2 '^^ ..<&...A— aged 52 yrs, s/o Shri R.S.Sharma, s\o ...••'! _^il>S.'i Senior Accounted /1--'".'.-'•""'ricA^'''""" ..•••* Municipal Corporation - Korba 0"^"''L-'...-•"*'" Distt- Korba CG <cw^y!o:-"<" ^"^... ^•"" VERSUS - KESPONDENTS ^-1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through : The Secretary to the Government of C.G. Nagariya Niyojan - avam- Vikas Vibhag : Mantralaya Raipur CG /2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Through : The Commissipner, Municipal Corporation, Korba CG ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER KKriCLE 226/227 0V THE CONSTITOTION OF INDIA The Petitioner respectfully submits as under : HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESe.ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. W. P.(S) No. 5239 of 2006 ^ Petitioner Respondents Sopal Saran Sharnw Versus State of Chhattisgarh and o'ther. Present: Shri Anurag Shfivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumedi Bajaj; 6ovt. Advocate for respondent No. l/ State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No. 2/ Municipal Corporotion. ORDER (Passed on 4th October, 20)6) 1. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawol, Advocate present in the Court is directed to appear on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. This Court- in an identical matt-er where the pending enquiry could not be concluded for more •thon 12 years, has directed the respondents to complete the pendmg depart'men'tal enquiry within a period of two months from the date of re<»iptof a copy of thisorder. 2. In -Hie present case, admitt-edly the departmental enquiry was mitkxted against the petitioner, who yws working as Senior Accountant in the Municipal Corporation, Korba in the yeoy 1991, when the charge-sheet (Annexure P/2) was »rvedon Ihe petitioner. It is unforhjnate that the respondents have placed the petitioner in such a situation without concluding the ^ '••h' ^ .r enquiry which ought to have been done as expeditiously as possible wi-thin stipulated time. The petitioner seems to have been harossed during this period. 3. In the facts cuid circumstonces of the case, it is directed that the respondents Witl do well in concluding the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from tocby. 4. The State/Municipal Corporation are expected to tnke oppropriate action against the offteers/officials, who are reqionsible for causing such delay in completionof the deparhnental enquiry. 5. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with the above stated observation/direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotri Judge &jbhash