m IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, (c.G.) W.P. No.1 3L9 /2005 PETITIQNER: //Kanak Lata Wesley W/o Shri G. Bhaskar Wesley Aged about 61 years R/o B—3, B— Block, Vikram Apartment, Rejendra Nagar Katora Talab, Raipur District Raipur at present workmm; as Deputy Commissioner Department of Scheduled Caste andi Schedule Tribe, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: {1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Scheduled Scheduled Caste & Tribe Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Welfare Department Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, (Madhya Pradesh) Director, Tribal Welfare, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS: - 1 d Xl-HC—78 [23f “30L? (4’9 ..... ‘. . a5m$ mmo s“ mwm (W) maaitm mmwma . mamé'wm ammawm'ai $Wané31 16.09.2005 ounsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Mr. Vivek Sharma, lea ned Panel Lawyer for the State of 2 Chhattisgarh l respondents 1 & Heard Learned counsel for the etitioner submits that the petitioner was reafter she was promoted to the post riyaband in the department of SC/ST umed the office on 01.091992. The petitioner was issued charge eet on 15.06.1994 (Annexure P—1) ' containing 18 charges of serio s irregularities in the construction of various projects by not taking ap roval of the Collector and causing loss to the Government. Additional c arge sheet dated 3006.1 994 containing six more charges, was issued. According to the petitioner, she was issued show cause notice on 27. 1.1995 as to why Departmental Enquiry be not initiated against the petitoner. The petitioner filed her reply on 15.01.1996. According to th petitioner, an Enquiry Ofhcer was appointed on 20.09.1996 and the enquiry began on 03.07.1999 (Annexure P-5). The enquiry as concluded and enquiry report was submitted on 28.05.2002. No ac on was taken by the respondents on the basis of enquiry reports agains the petitioner, so far. The petitioner apprehends that action includin the termination from service, may be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to retire on 30.06.2006 nd the respondents may take action against her 'on the basis of w ng enquiry report. According to the petitioner an enquiry was not co ducted in accordance with Rule 14 (23) , /\(i) of the C.G. (Classification, Co trol and Appeal) Rule, 1966. appointed in the year 1966 and of Project Officer, Administrator Welfare Development and she / / / @ W ‘ e a s h , Xl-HC-78 W wqi$ . um; .€‘. . m?- ., .Lf- .efl72; ~@ mzoo y msrmwm ' aarr «£31m atréai nails (W) mmWané$ _2,_ ‘ mmzmam wwma Suguna The respondents have nc enquiry repott which is impugn! premature on the ground that the chaslenge unless some action is respondents have already exam propose to take action against ti ‘ has arisen to invoke extraordinay jurisdiction of’this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, Supreme Court in the matter of K Board reported in (2005) 6 St Supreme Court after having co conclusion of the enquiry, quas ed the charge memo issued against the appellant. In the present case, nquiry had already been completed and enquiry report can not be quash when no action has been taken on the basis of the enquiry report; Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition is premature as no cause of action has arisen on the basis of enquiry report which is, according to the petitio er. not in accordance with laws For the reasons stated a ove, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. All miscellaneous applic ions, thus, stand disposed’gjgwu. .,, ' Sdj’u r . . Satish K. Agnihctrl Judge it passed any order on the basis of the ad, tilt date and the present petition is enquiry report could not be a subject of :aken against the petitioner. May be the ned the enquiry report andhthey do not ie petitioner as such no cause‘of action .V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. T.N. Housing igreme Couit Cases $6 wherein the sidered long delay of 10 years in the Learned counsel for thelpetitioner relies on the judgment of the r