3 IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUMCATURE CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. &/-^1 / 2005 Petitioner ^ /^. ^<<^'/ ^€// v<^/ /'J'V^ <^f' ' ''^y Versus y. Sunil KumarTiurori - 5/oteviShGRkar Tiwari, Aged about 34 years, PreSenfly posted as Asst. teacfier, (Pt. Chakradani Shukls) Government Higher SecoRdary School, Baloda Bazar, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Baloda Bazar, t>ist; Raipur-(C.6.) Respondents :1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisqarh Through The Secretary Education DeparfmentAAantrataya, D.K.S. Bhawars,RQipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) , The Director Public Education, Raipur ISist: Raipur (ChhattiSgarh) The DistrictEducationOfficer, - Raipur(C.6.) TheCollector, Ourg-CC.S.) The Block Education Officer. Baloda Bu^ur, Ruipur--(C.6.) TheBlockEducationOffication, Palari, &ist: Raipur'(C.G.) ShriS.L6atekwad, Tahwidar, Nandghat, Dist: Durg-CC.6.) —II S^^i;sia . •:-s^^. 1;<1 (2) WRITPETrTION UNDER ARTECLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONST-ETUTION ORaNKEA FOR ISSUANCEOF SUITABLE_ WRIT ^ WRITS. bIRECTllON ETC TO t>0 JUSTECE IN THE AAATrER. mpH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION No. 6151 of2005 PETITIONER : RESPONDENTS Sunil Kumar Tiwari. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRtT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF'INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Smt. HamidaSiddique, Advocatefor the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 to 6. Shri N.N.Roy, Advocate for the respondent No. 7. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 14U1 day ofMarch, 2011) 1. Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent Np. 1 to 6 submits that in the enquiry, no allegation made agaiast the petitioner has been found proved and it has also been found that the complaint was not made by a person who allegedly made the complaint, but by some other person who is not traceable, as is evident from Armexure R/2 and R/3. Thus, any action, iftakenon the basis of the said complaint, stands withdrawn and the petitioner is entitled to all the relief which have been taken away on the basis of the forged complaint made by some othei- person. Thus, nothmg survives in this petition for adjudication. 2. Smt. Siddique, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the retum filed by the State/respondent No. 1 to 6, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter at this stage. However, later on, one more enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner on the same issue. 3. Be that as it may, smce the subsequent enquiry is not the subject matter ofthis petition, I do not express any opinion on the issue. Ifthe petitioner is aggrieved by fhe subsequent action, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with law. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs.