^\ •ft ^..—. L. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICB SUNIL KUMAR SINHA W.P. (Sl N0.2636 OP 2009 PETITIONER RE8PONDBNTS Ajay Kuiuar Daharia s/o Ganesh Ram Daharia, aged about 57 years, R/o village & P.0. Basia, District Jaajgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) Vs. State of Clihattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Veterinaiy Services, Dau Kalyan Siugh BuUding, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Directorate, Through Additional Drrector, DepartBient of Veterinary Services, Dau Kalyan Singli Building, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) . The Deputy Du'ector, Veterinary Sendces, Raigarh(CG) The Deputy Directo/r, Veteriiiary Sendces, Janjgir, District Jaiijgir Champa(CG) The Collector, District Jaajgir Champa(CG) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT3PN OFINDIA Appearaace: Shii Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Stui Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5 on advanee copy. W.P.fSWo. 2636/2009 ORALORDBR (20.05.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner- Ajay Kuniar Dahada has filed this writ petition for the foUowuig reUefi[s): 10.1 That the Hon^ble Court raay Idndly be pleased to caU. for the entire records for its kind peinsal. 10.2. That tliis Hon'ble Court raay kladly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorad quashing the impugned Charge-Sheet (Annexure P-1) passed by fhie respondent no.2 with all consequential benefits. 10.3. That this HonTble Court aiay kindly be pleased to issue writ ia nature of Mandamiis to giye appropriate direction/order to respondents to allow the petitioner to joui the service. 10.4. That any other reUef which the Honyble Court inay deeia fit aad proper also be graated to the petitioner in the iaterest ofjustice. 10.5. That the cost of the petition inay also be given to the petitioner by the respondents authorities. Duriiig the course of arguinents, leanied counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is uuder suspension since 1.10.2001, therefore, he is not pressiag the niam relief of quasliment of the charge sheet and praying for a direction to the respondents to expecUte the proceedings of departmental enquiiy pendiiig before theni. This Ihuited prayer raade by leamed counsel for tlie petitioner is not opposed by leai'ned counsel for the State. However, he subinits that a reasonable tiaie niay be granted to dispose ofthe departmental enquiry proceedings. Considering the facts aad circiirastances of the case, particularly the cu'cunistaace that the petitioner is under gz^^isi W.P.tSWo. 2636/2009 suspension siiice 1.10.2001, the aforesaid Umited prayer is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shaU dispose of the departinental enquuy proceedings, pending before thein (as stated by counsel for the petitioner) as early as possible preferably within a period ofsbc months from the date ofproduction ofcertified copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition before the concenied authority. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the wnt petition stands finally disposed of In view of the above, I.A.No. 1/2009 for grant of iaterim reUef, I.A.No.2/2009 for urgent heanng and I.A.No.3/2009 for hearing the case during Suninier Vacation staad disposed of. Certified copy as per rules, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge