SSNQLE •-<•: >vy PETJTICMEa ^^ ^^ RESPCNDENTS _IN_Tffi_HIGH_ COURT OF JUDICATURE OF C.G.AT BILASPUR IT PETITION N0.2'3'^o/2006 Rajendra Prasad Tondon, son of uateShri N.Tondon, aged 49 years, Police Inspector Fa-ysegarh, Police Bistrict Beejapur, South- Bastar, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS ^.('~1) S-tate of Chhattisgarh, Through Secre- tary to Home Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Chbattisgarh. ^(2) Direc-tor Generalof Police, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (3) Shri Mahendra Singh Xomar Suprinten- dent of Police Korba, C.G. gt Present a-fctached Second B.N. Sakari, Dis'trie't Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / (4) Suprintendent of Police, Distric-t Beejapur (Chhat-bisgarh). IT PBTITIOH UNDER ABTiECEE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUMCE GF WRIT IN THE NATtRE_^_M^}DAMS WRITS. ORDEB/ORDERSi&IRECTION/DIRECTICNS ^ <-s- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETITION No.2340 of2006 Rajendra Prasad Tondon VERSUS State ofChhattisgsarh & othei-s Ashc.k WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA 8B:Jlonybie_S!ui Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Jagdish Singh Barik, Shri Dhiraj WhaiAliade aiid Shri A.R. Yadav, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Go\-t. Advocate forlhe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passsd oa 26"' day ofApril, 2010) 1. Lsamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Sub Jnspector of Police, was promoted to the post of Inspector by order dated 20/01/2006 (Annexure P-2) and thereafier he worked for about 2 months. The order ofpromotion was cancelled by impugned order dated 5/4/2006 (Aimexure P-1) on the groimd that departmental enquin' was pending consideration against fhe petitioner. Lsamed counsel further submits that during pendency of fllis writ petition ffae disciplinary enquir>' proceedings resulted into exoneration of all charges vide -tonexure P-10 datecl 20/1/2009. Thus, the case of the petitioner ought to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 20/01/2006. Leamed counsel next submits that, at this stage, the petitioner does not want to contest the matter on merits, howevsr, the petitioner may be pennitted to make a representation to fhe resppndent No.2 Director General ofPoUce arid it tum fhe respondent No.2 may be directsd to consider the reprssentation submitted by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance wifh law, within flie stipulated period. 3. At this juncture, Shri Bhatia, leamed Dy. Govt. Adv-ocate submits fliat if a representation has been made by the petitioner, the same shall be considei'ed and decided, in accordance with !aw and on its owa. merits, wifhin a period of eight weeks from fhe date ofreceipt ofrepresentation. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. ;~ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge