IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT — BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. g4 of 2010 Arising out of the order, dt. 29[3(2010 passed in WP (S1 I No. 175 of 2010 by the learned Single Bench APPELLANT I Petitioner : S. R. Kashyap Aged — 49 years, S/o Shri P. R. Kashyap Working as — Forest Range Officer, at — Forest Range, Barsur, ForestDiVision, Dantewada, District — Dantewada (South Baster) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through — Its secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur /" 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Chhattisgarh, ” H. Q. — Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Divisional Forest Officer / Enquiry. Officer, Baster Division, Jagdalpur, District — Baster (C. G.) Shri Chandu Ram Nagare, Forester, Through — Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Dantewada (C. G.) Respondents Writ AQQeai Under Section — 2(1) of the Chhattusggrh Hlqh Court (AQpeal to DlVISlon Bench) Act, 2006 / Hi6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON‘BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSI & HON‘BLE $HRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J'J'. WRIT APPEAL NO.84 OF 2010 Appellanf/ 5.R. Kashyap Pe'l'i‘l'ioner Vs Respondenfs STa‘fe of C.6. and ofhers. Presenf: Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocafe for The pefi'rioner. Mr. Vinny Harif, Dy. Advocafe General wifh Miss Deepaii Pandey, P.L. for fhe Siafa‘ ORAL JUD$MENT (Passed an 12*“ Aprn, 2010) I.M. Quddusi, J: 1. Heard learned counsel for The per-Hes. 2. This wri'l' appeal has been filed againsf the impugned order/ judgmem dated 29.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (s) No.175/2010 direcfing +he respondenfs To conclude The deparfmenfal enquiry inifiaied againsl +he v wri’r appellan'r as early as possible preferably wi‘rhin a period of Three monlhs from 'rhe dafe of receipl of copy of The judgmenf and order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for fhe wri'r appellanf has submiffed fhaf fhe wrif appellant has nof been provided reasonable o‘pporfunify To defend himself and even he has noT been supplied The relevanT documenTs inasmuch as he could noT submiT his reply and The deparTmenT proceeded wiTh recording sTaTemenT of The wiTnesses. 4. To our mind The deparTmenTal proceeding can be a subjecT maTTer afTerriTs conclusion and if any acTion is Taken on The basis of same. Therefore! in case, The wriT appellanT feels ‘ . aggrieved by fhe final order passed in The discipiinary proceedings ‘ini‘riafed agains'r him, if will always be open f0 'rhe wri'r appellan'r f0 challenge fhe same a'r 'i'he appropria're forum. However, a1 This sfage when learned Single Judge, wi'rhou‘r considering 'rhe way of conduc'iing enquiry, direcfed Thai” The enquiry proceedings be concluded as early as possible preferably wifhin a period of ’rhree mon‘rhs, fhere is no illegalify or impropriefy 'rherein. . Accordingly, we dispose of fhis wri‘r appeal wi'rh The observa'rion fha'i' in case final decision is faker! affer conclusion of fhe enquiry and 'l'he wrii’ appellan'r feels aggrieved, if will be open for him fo challenge The decision or enquiry proceedings aT The appropriaTe forum raising all The \quesTions, as advised To raise aT ThaT Time. 6. CeWs per rules. “l l Sd/‘ Prashant ls((lllfnar Mishra I.M.Quddusi Judge l Judge r ’ ’