i'if.':.-!'^'J'J'V&''^K. ^ E!:!:,» :<:.'• f-''-^--'' '•' ' -r' .• IN -SS HISH COURT OF >TUBIGATBRE Al ?UR (C.G.) WRIiE ^TISCION N0.^ OP 2001 w i ^%EgN Subrato'asy, S/@ Shri:S.K.Eoy, agedabout 42 years,' Wis'R.is.g a.s Bxecutiv®,Bnginqer, posted at Bastar Bl.visAen in the Ctibattisgarfa State HarketAag B®an3. Earlier laiewn as Maahya Eradesh State AgriGultural.MarketJ.Bg Board,' J^gctelpur^ Dlstal.c-fc Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ^. ' . EETIIimES ».N D [fti m?^; •\ l.«' 21he Kadh^a Eradesh Sta-fce Agricultural, Marltetlng Board^ ihrough its cfoairman^, 26 Area?a iHills^' Kishaa Elhai®n, EHOE&W (KIa<3hya B-adesh).' . 2. MaEaglag .Bireetar, M.P.Stafce Agricalfeural Marketlng Board, a'iopal^ havlag tts Office at 26 Arsra Hllls* Kishaa Shawan, SHOE&L (MP) 3S< Ihe Gfcihgttisgarh s-fcat.e flgriculfaral Msriastteg S®aFd,.,PuranaQaaj ,:Ktoiiai Earisbary Baipur,-. (2ahattisgart». <p .&^1. &\ '?•.^ ^/ ]^SW8I£ SS WE333: WmSI£®..'WEEK-tK'E3©E»S^22g^27__OE_@® eGiNs'riOTTxm ©pBID» «11*«'»1WW \dxni'-«ioic>«,uiTlwis, tqni<ay< .U}...(?:.^:.(0.^... 3IT^?I qa^ ('j^fg^R?) ^200/ an^awR-fi* ?i'an3n^?r*i ?^irsR^ft?i an^T 20/09/2005 Mr. Manindra Shwa^awi, <b|t|fd41'1 HllriT'fls'^1 xfuit^l't ^ai^T.ni^?! leamed Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Smte Ghai, tearned counsel for the pettti|oner. Mr. H.S.Tripathi, teamedccl.insel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr RanbeerSingh Marhas Heard. learned counsel for respondentNo.3. This petition filed under SeitCon 226/227 of the Constitutton of India impugns the charge sheets vide A^inexures P/1 to P/13 issued againstthe '. Manindra Shrivastava, teamed Sr. Advocate with Mre. Smita Ghai, Advocate, appearing for (ie petitioner submits that fte eha^ge sheets issued long back from 1^.04.1989 have been impugned in ftis petitipn. No enqulry has been conr(| Marketing Board pureuant to the sheets of Annexures P/1 to P/1 eounset for the petiBoner that ttie holding an enquiry after considerii pleted by ChhatUsgarh State /^ricuUure order dated 26.04.2001 passed by this Court staying the enquiry proce^dings initiated pureuant to the charge 3. It is ftirther submitted by leamed enquiry officer be directed to decide fer the repties and representaUons, ff any filed hereinafter, wtthin a period oiffour months from the date of receipt of this order. Leamed counselappearing|for the respondents have no objection. The respondent No. 3 is ac|M>rdingly direeted to examine the replies fited by the petiUoner eartier and <fecide the representation wtthin a period 3P/FS/2005-20,000 *iwif>iwtnv si | -yiqi«<4,yiTI<H<ld, R«ltfy<< LO' -P- No . <c SS 3IT^?T^tS (ijclijd.Et) W^200( siif^sTwrR-ii* i!Tai?3n^?Tiinto of threeweeks and ifthe authoritl ttiatmay be completed within a on the repiies fited by the petittone^ p^riod In view of the foregoing, th« '^i-fl-1' <biyfd41'< *11*lokT*lfls'<9 tfuit^i't ^aiKlHaii^iT es'find it nece^ary to hold an enquiry, of four months after taking dedsion petition stands disposed <rf. Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotri SP/FS/2005-20,OOQ }L^^"'^ i ' ~1\