C^^J^^/^ RESPONDENTS s Ss&sp»'^E2& y yf-'3 IN THE MADHYA PRADESH_ADMIfiISTMIIVE_TRIBUNAL JABALRJR O.A. AFPLIGANT '. OF 18< <^ <aS~, T'<fi«»d ^ ^^ r '<fs"y Sitalasay Sahu, Aged about48 years, S/0 Thandlram Sahu, - By Occupatlon, Assis'tant Develop- aent Bactentlon Qtft.cec, Block Barafflka.la, Dtsttlet M3_GAffll 1. The State of Madhya Sradesh, Through, The Secretary, Panchayat and Itoral Deveiopment Department, Vallabh Etoawan BHOPAL 2. The C&llector, Raiaarh 3. The Additlonal Oollector, RAIGARH 4. THE DISTRICT.ENQUIRY OFFICER, Cbllecterate, BAIG^RH APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADiiaNISTRATIVE TRIBU- NALACr. 1985 DETAILS OF APPLICATION PARTICULARS OF THE APPLIC^NT : As per cause title. PARTICULARS. O.F THE RESPONDENTS : As per cause title. PARTia.UAR5_QF THE_&BDER AGAINST ViiHICH THE APPLICATlU ON IS MAOE s 1. Order No. 2^ Dated 3. .Paased by Developaent- l/Est/97 Ralgail 5.2.1997 The Respondent no. 2 '.-S. 3.4-^'.."^...2.1: A^<-|.?^L -HC-22 sn^r'^r Wl'h 3f^V sniiii ^lfiif \ '; '^.'tT^^1'' 's^'^WKP!, v^»< ,h'lwy. ?n^?r IRRS ^•tCs.)^-\^^ ^ *<i*«ni sti*ii<ii RKK^ST' WtS~~ an^TTODWdfCT SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrhyastava. J. 04-01^010 When the matter was called petitioner and the matter was passed appears for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govtj The petitioner has filed this ins ofdepartmental enquiry mainly on the| oase and pendency thereof, the instituted and continued. The return has been filed in| departmental enquiry has already passed tiy the Disciplinary Author^ subsequent developments that the c6ncluded and the fact that there wa^ js rendered infructuous. The petition is therefore dismi^ the petitioner to challenge the order and this order ofdismissal shall not atready made or made hereinafter. for hearing, none appeared for the <)ver. Even inthe second round, none 1 Advocate for the State/respondents. tant petition chaltenging the initiation [ground that the institution ofcriminal (epartmental enquiry could not be beeh ^it^(fe<it'i tiffl?if t? ^^ tf^R^rt ^slROT 311^51 Iwhich it has been stated that the completedand final order has been fy on 09-03-1999. In view of the d^partmental enquiry itsetf has finalty no interim order, the instant petition ^sed. However, liberty is reserved to jpassed by the Discjplinary Authority citme in the way of such a chaltenge, if Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge