w m7£2 GD BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. QK6% / 2011 / PETITIONER :" Shaniram Suman S/o. late Pilwaram, aged about 51 years, Asstt. Grade—II, Zila Antyavayasayi Sahkari Samiti, ) Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, (C.G‘) R/o. Village Sighanpuri, P.O. Pasid,P.S. Kosir, Tahsil— Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS /1. Chhattisgarh State Antyavaysayi Sahakari Vitta Avam Vikas Nigam, Ltd. , Raipur Through its Managing Director, B—9,Sector -5 Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). /, 2. Collector‘ cum President, Zila Antyavayasayi Sahkari Samiti, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA 1" mm (Wu) Wmw vwmm WWW WW $aifdqéméw hrivastava S J. mafsam B: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mo S ha 10-05-2011 Ms. Naushina Aii, counsel fo the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel fo the respondents. The petitioner has filed 'his writ petition aggrieved by non- consideration of the case of the p titioner for promotion to the next higher post of Area Officer. A departmen I enquiry has been opened against the petitioner. The said departmentai e quiry has remained pending. During this period, it is the assertion of the itioner that the person junior to the petitioner has been promoted because of the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petition r is not being promoted. It has been categorically averred in the writ peti on that the officers placed at serial no.1 O has been promoted. From the averments which h ve been made in the petition, it appears that the departmental enquiry has s ili remained pending and the petitioner is not being promoted. The petitioner has also made representation, piaceci on record (Annexure P/4), which sh that the petitioner has been claiming promotion. The departmental enquiry nst the Government Servant cannot be continued indefinitely. The depar tal enquiry is required to be concluded expeditiously and within a reasonab time. The respondent No.1 is therefore, duty bound to conclude the dep ntal enquiry against the petitioner as early as possible. The respondent 0.1 should consider the representation of the petitioner for his claim for gran of promotion. ln case, the rules do not permit the award of promotion during the pendency of the enquiry, t t o a i t n a e Wm 111 zoo Wm (Wm WWW y—Q? respondent No.1 shall take all nece 'sary steps to conciude enquiry within an outer limit of six months from the da “Nag; m .Qqa’B/n mmfaaw WWW mm§wm~ *Wm Deapli of receipt of copy of the order. With the aforesaid observatio is, the petition is finally disposed off. #‘4 \. Manirtdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Sd/-