^z/ ^i^ COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DSVjSjQN BENCH CORA!VI: HON'BLE SHRE RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLAMT Writ ApReal Mo.77 of 2007 Prahlad Prasad Sharma, aged about 59 years, son of Late Ramnath Sharma, Occupation - service, presentSy posted as Sub-DivisionaS Officer, Water Resources Department, Sub Divjsion No.2, Kawardha, Djstrict Kabirdham. RESPONDENTS 1. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Englneer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Shiva Bhawan, Raipur. 3. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Raipur. 4. The Superintending Englneer, Water Resources Department, Shivnath ClrcSe, Durg. 5. Shri S.K. Tiwari, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division Kawardha, Dlstrict Kabirdham. Writ Appeal Under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisaarh Hlah Court (Appeal to Divisson Bench) Act.2006 Present: Shri Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appeilant. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned DeputyA.G. forthe respondents No.1 to 4/State. ^' JUDGIVIENT (27th IVIarch, 2008) The foilowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard iearned counsel for the parties. 2. Appeilant - Prahatad Prasad Sharma has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 26.2.2007, passed in W.P.(S)No.1112/2007. 3. Appeliant/petitioner flied the writ petition for the foSSowing reSiefs: " 7 a). A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do commanding and directlng the respondent State authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court ali the reievant records pertalning to the case ofthe petitionerfor its kind perusa!. b) A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the memos dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) & 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) being iilegal, arbitrary, malafide and not in accordance wlth theservlce jurisprudence in the facts and clrcumstances of the case. c) A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of prohibition do Issue restralnlng the respondent State authorities, their agents, servants and employees to proceed further with the departmental enquiry 'initjated under the show cause notice dated 28.12.2006titlthe decision of this petltion in the facts and circumstances of the case. d) A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do commanding and directing the respondent State authorities to stop payment of all ^ biiis, whlch were signed by said Shri K.S. Mishra in place of petltioner, at the instance of respondent No.5 and further restrained the respondent No.5 from doing so In future til! the decision of this petition. e) A writ and/or an order En the nature of writ of mandamus do commandlng and directing the respondent State authorities to inqulred the all work whichwas measured by Shri S.K. Mishra and payment by R-5. f) Cost of the proceedings. g) Any other relief In the dlscretion of this Hon'ble Court." 4. Appeliant/petitloner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the memos dated 18.10.2006 and 12.12.2006 (Annexures P-2 & P-6) and notice dated 28.12.2006, wherebythe petltioner was asked to show cause as to why departmental enquiry be not instiated against hlm. 5. On 10.4.2007, the following interim order was passed in this writ appeal: "Pendency of the appeal wouid not come in th.e way of the respondents in continuing with the enquiry proceedings, but they shail not pass any final orders without leave ofthe Court." 6. Shri N.K. AgrawaE, Searned Deputy Advocate General has submitted a fax copy of the communicatlon dated 4.3.2008, received from the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kawardha, whereby it is conveyed that the department has neither initlated any departmentaS enquiry against the appetlant/petitioner in furtherance of the show cause notice dated 28.12.2006 nor any such departmental enquiry is contemptated agalnst him. 7. Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Seamed counsel for the appeliant does not dispute that in view of the above categoric stand taken by the department in the matter, nothing survives for decision In this writ appeai. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, Is dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- Chief Justice ^ubbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge