^r: I'BBI] ^'"BKI :s.' '• ^' ^ -x'y-'^fe.' 'i •. ^ ^/--f--^ .?^-'"tf' MB^ PTMm^l W.P. No.......W.!..L:1..^..../20QQ. (Service Matter) ^TmONER: ..:y KE^&NDENTS ~v JILLA SEHKABI KENDMYA BANKAMBIKAPURC SARGUJA) THROUGHITS MANAGER. VERSUS 1. PITRSHOTTAMSHARMA Ex-Samiti Prabandhak Distt. Coop. Ceiitfal BankLtd. 2. ASSTt.REGISTRARCOOP.. SOCIETIES AMBIEAPUR. 3. JOB^rREGISTRARCQOP. SAMITIES BILASPUR. 4. BEGISTRARM.P. STAIE •^ €QOP.TRIBUNALBHOPAL. iM- a *tFR5lIPqT^ td-oq'«l'itin«,»T?lwi<S,RCTI<tty< ..^:.f>..^^.&.i^^^m^200 3n^?r tra^ (>jcifj6i<^) sii^TwR'ii* a'waii^niTOw ¥RtIW?^lfeT3n^?I 24.08.2005 Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned c|ounsel for thp petitioner- Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learnec| I.A,No,573of2004 Thisis an application for Theapplication Is disposed Leamed counsel for the p| 21.06.2000 (Annexure P-4) pass^ Bhopal iri SA.No. 372 of 1999, directed the petitioner to conduct| on the charges contained jn 23.06.1994 and 22.10.1995 opportunity to flle his reply to the not filed any reply to the said entire enquiry to be completed wif of the copy of the order dated 2) case the enquiry is not the respondent is not found guilts|f service. The question ofback of the enquiry. No step has beer) enquiry within the prescribed tim^ not granted by this Court. Learned counset appearirij petition be not entertained on the complied with the orderofthe Cooj On perusgl of the papersj 18.01.2(XX) thereafter the petition^ ur^ent hearing. aNr c^arges. completedl within wa|ges <Ri<ifCT<Ilt*iiinT't"fa'<9? #3iRl«i<>ii^?r ::1^1 counsel for respondent No.1 bf.'-: :: • • ' !- fetitioner submite that vide order dated (d by M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, ^he Tribunal whilej allowing the appeal |a fresh enquiry against the respondent |the chargesheets dated 20.04.1993, affording the respondent one more ^bove charges. As the respondent had tt was further directed that the thin six months from the.date of receipt !.06.2000. It was also directed that in the above mentioned period and he should be reinstatediback into the was left to be decldedon the basis taken by the petitioner to complete the Stay of the impugned drder was also for respondent No.1 submits thatthis >imple ground thatthe peUtioner has not t?erative Tribunal in time. found that the peUUon was filed pn sr has nottaken any step to remove fhe SFVFS/2005-20,000 \3-eef?i|T<<lcWT, »tt *ll*l«l^1T?P ^ ..AA«£.A^S„£?.l^.Stc3>,^^ 2QQ 3n^?iiraw(<j?jfg^%) SII^STqiTR'fi* awaii^Tri)*)'!* s^iTW^iftCT SII^ST—^ls— Sarma <i>i<ifn<Ili*titCTT^'fe'd tlwx^ii ^3lR)*f3II^ST l'"?^. •^' defects as no one for the petitione|- appeared before Additional Registrar (J) on 04.02.2003, 26.02.2003, $7.03.2003 agd before the Court on '10.07.20Q3 as such the matter c(iuld not be taken up for hearing. It •\' • •"• '•.'.'I'" ••• • "_• • '•' . '.'• '. ':''... . seemsthe petitionerwas not interes|ted in prosecutingthis matter. In view pftheforegoing, the rtetjtion stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri, Judge