?ETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. é) i 7V2005 x K.K. Yadav, S/o. Shri Y.N. Yadav, Aged about 37 years, Occupation * service, Presently working as AssiEtant Manager, R.M. Office, ESP Unit, Chennai (Tamilnadu}, R/o.Qr.No.12-A,F-Pocket, Maroda Sectar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) RESPONDENTS Chairman, Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist.Durg (C.G.) Thraugh its Managing Director Managing Director, (Disciplinary Authority) Bhilai Steel-Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C‘G) General Manager, Town Administration Department Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G) Executive Director (Personnel & Administration), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhiiai, Dist. Durg (C.G) Enquiry Officer—cum— Chief ?ersonnel Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Burg (C.G) Chief Personnel Manager (Executive Cell), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G) Pratap Shekhar Naik, Asst. Estate Manager, Town Administration Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G) /1. , .K. Kayal, Assistant Genexal Manager, Safety Bepartment, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Burg (C.G) Senior Manager (Personnel & Consultation), Bhilai Steei Plant, Bhilai, Dist. Burg (C.G) WRIT PETITION mER ARTICLE 226/227 OF T33 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA”"FOR ISSUANCE OF ‘WRIT IN THE Mm OF CERTIORARII MAMUSI PROIIBITION ARD FOR OTHER SUITBETJ’ WRIT OR WRIT3, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS A XI—HC 78 am 372% W waqi‘a'q, WW an ‘, W WWWEQ?.SV NO Evx; :2mnf £‘IE W ’gaEiaw?) ¥ W. Eli}?W €* fwfi‘ fma¥ a: sifem mm _ WWW we am I have heard the learned iounsel for the petitioner at lengm. l have also gone through theE entire records of the case and examined the matter. Since there is an altema 'Ve remedy of appeal in the rules itself and the appeal has alr "dy been tiled and the same is pending before the competent a; thority, I am of the opinion that present is not a tit case in wh' h this Court should intervene at I this intermediate stage. Let the pp6al b6 decided fn‘s‘r, 14.3.2005 Smt. Fouzia Mirza, couns 1 for the petitionér. LANG. 1364/ 2005 for urg nt hearing is allowed. Heard on admission. Leamed counsel for e petitioner submits that the petitioner has been punished a domestic enquiry vide orderdk 147.2004 (Annexure P— 22). S e funher submits that according To the provisions of Conduct, D scipline. and Appeal Rules, 1977, there is a provision of appeal the petitioner has filed an appeal before the competent authority 11 19.72004, The memo of appeal alongwith the endorsement of eipt has been filed as Annexure P— 23. The endorsement shows that the appeal has been sent through proper channel vide rechipt Nov 1141 dated 19.7.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that till today the appeal of the petitiotiier has not been decided and the order of punishment has been given effect to. :\ f 1 ' c Xl—HC 78 1 WWfiW; wmremm W€ ma Wig? at??? were? (aetféee) E ‘1,— 2§§ 23g: § WWWWPJf§WW< éwiiwm been decided so far, then the comp€tent authority as‘early as it is directed that if the albp€al f11€d by ”(ha petitioner has: not same shall be decided bV the pOS$ibie, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt] production of certified copy of thiS order before him. if any adverse order is passed 1'11 the appeal, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the this Court. The petition is finally disposed of at this stage with the aforesaid liberty grahted in favour of the petitioner. Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ;ame by iih'rig fresh petition before Certified copy as per rules mam mm