@ HI$H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA5PUR Wrif Pefi‘fian (5) Na. 2164 0f 3007 Pefmaner 5ubhash Pmi ageii abom‘ 52 years' 5/0 Shri Antu Pati, Occupafion- Sfafe Governmenf service (Muifipurpose Worker) at viHage and Sub Centre Chiprikona, communiw HeaH‘h Cem‘re, Basna, P.5. and Tahsil- Basna, District Mahasamund [6&1 Versus Respmwems 1. 5mm of Chhmfisgarh, ?hrough Secretary, Medical and Heaith Deparfmem‘, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [cm Chief Medical and Heah‘h Officer, Mahnsamund, Districf Mahusamund {€62} 3. 'Bicck Medical Offlcerl Communify Heul‘lh Centres Basna, Disi‘ricf Mahasamund [C.G.] 4. Callecfer, Disfricf Mahasamund [c.a] 5. Jaipal Baghel, aged abauf 56 year-s, 5/0 Piyari Bughel, R/o village Chiparikona, Surpanc'n af 6mm Panchayaf- Chiparikona, Posi- Bhawarpur, Tahsil- Ewna, Weir-ici- Mahasamund [C.6.]. Simle Beneh: Han’hle Mr. Jus‘l’iée Salish K. Agnihafri. Presen'r: Mr, Vishwamth Goswami; Advocate for ihe peiifioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for Sfafe/respondenfs No. 1 To 4. oaDER (Passed on 1a” may of April, zoo?) 1. Learned caunsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Multipurpose Worker at Village and Sub Centre Chiparikona, Btock- Basna, District- Mahasamund. The services of the petitioner was placed at Sub €entre Khoksa during the pendency of the ei1quir‘y againsf him, v€de order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexui‘e P-I) passed by The respondem No. 2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for 1‘he pefifioner submifs Thai fhe pe‘ri‘h'oner has been exonerafed in The enquiry, without giving my informaiicn even under ihe provisions of Right To Informcd‘ion Aci. The pefiiianer ques’rions abouf his fempar'ary pos’ring ai Sub canir‘e Khoksa during enquiry. /) w I have heard ieamed caunsei appearing for fhe pe‘i‘iiioner' and gone Thmugh ihe pleadings and dacumenfs appended iherefo. If appears fina‘i enquiry is na‘i ye? campie‘re, as no punifive order has been passed againsi fhe peiifioner. The a‘h‘empf on fhe par? of The pei'ifianer f0 obiain a copy of The enquiry repori' has no basis, as if appears that na enquiry report can be given if enquiry is‘ incompie‘ie. If is faund ihai‘ ihe impugned Order dafed 15.1.2007 is neiiher a fransfer arder ncr an order for removal, being punii‘ive in nai'ure. 4. In view of fhe pending enquiry, fhe pefifioner has been pasfed of differenf 5ub Heaifh Centre within the same district for smooth conduct of the enqmry. This petiticn is pre—mature and tacks materiai facts for indulgence of this .Court. Accordingly. this petition is dismissed. V § Satish Sdl— K. Aguihotri Q1 i Judge