r.;-" \b%%.--" .<»<is"""..'M;;"' ^^" ..••-""" f^"". ...••••" /7 /"", y ' '...A3&-"" l—4-' er^ IN THE HON'BIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARH) Writ Petition fService) No. -5\^ Of 2009. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :- Puhup Ram Naik, son ofLate Punau Ram Naik, aged about 58 years, Working as Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Co-operation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P.'<LBKCJTT Anc rtv T>17rTTrTTrt1\T17Tt—^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 5478 of2009 Petitioner Puhup Ram Naik Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aguihotri J.) Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate witb Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent. O RD E R (Orall (Passed on this 24fb day of September, 2009) Heard. 1. 2. Thtdm? The prayer and fhe reUef sought for in this petition is so vague as it camiot be inade out asto what is the reUef, fhe petitioner is seektag for. Even otherwise, no relief, eifher to exoneiate the petitioner or to give him punishment, can be granted. If tlie inatter is at enquiry stage, it is for the employer to decide whether the petitioner should be exonerated or punished. Evea if the enquuy is coinplete it is for fhe einployer to tabe decision thereou. This Court, exercising discretionaiy jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia caiinot iaterfere at fhis stage, as no light bas been accrued in favour of the petitioner. Thus, fhe petition is disiuissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge