^r"^ P'Sh ,"Ia» !i „•;•'$^ &., i^ ^,-s'" ~":^ wy^j i ^•/'jy "vaxay1 ^ /s- •-•f' HISH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILACT>UR ^•itP»titionl5)Mo. 3614 of 2008 Petitioner Rudr-a Mar-ayan Singh, 5/o Lote B. N. Sir.gh, aqed about 47 year, 5®rvice, Assistant St'ade-II, Revenue ESepartirient, posted at Rsmenu.jgsR.j, Distr'scT Surguja (C.6.) 2. 3. Versus Respondents 1. 5+ute of Chhattisgarh, through the Seerstary Revenue &epart"'®it, &.K.S. B}iawuir-i. Raipur (C.6.) The CuSlectoF &istrict S^rguja at Ambskspur (C.6.) Tne Additionu! Coitector, Rsnionujganj DistrEct Stn'guja (C-6.) 4. S. S. AR'.clesh. Nasb TshsHdar, Ambikapur, Eiistrict Surguju (C.6-) 5. Pr-akash KuiTiar Tsndon, Naib Tshsiidar Bair-ompur Diffi'rict Surgu.ia (C.6.) WKSJ PETTTON UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTiON OT; ZN&iA. Sirigle Bench : Mon'bie Mr. Sfltish K- Agnihotri uaihotri. J- Shri Subhash Yad<w, Advocate for the pe-titione-r. 9-ir-i Ajay bwivadi, ESeput-y 6ovt. Adv-ocate for tha resrioncien+s No. S to3. ^§^.^.^ ORAL ORDER O'asssa on this ilth day of Juh/, 2008) Vi/ith -riie consent of learried counsel (^pearing for •H->e parties, the ?Ttu'tt£P SS h£GFu'fino!iv. Learned counse! appearin9 for the petitior.er subnsits that the pel'i'i'ioner was suspended vide order dsted 20.4.2007 in contempiation of the enquiry- The char-ge sheet dated 31.5.2007 wos issueci but since then no steps has been taken by tk>e concerried pespondents to appoint either an »>quiryofficer or to 1- 2. ^.••f'^f:^.'. ^sr"^. 'Si^ l!BiiB ::l>te^ •^'asss!^ •^^ s% 5- T; - Th<Aur initiate departmen+al proceedings. The netitioner hos been suffering for more than u yesr- on account of non-initiation of the ciepar-tmental enquir/. The petitioner is stiSI under suspension (snd tcSiCiriu ?f*eri'hs! Gyony and hurfs^ai^ent. Learned counsel uppeuring for the petitioner fur-ther subffiits •thnt the netitioner is ready and wiilmg to cooper'nte in -i+ie depuri'menta! eriauirv. Thua. •the discinltriurv authori'hf msy be directed to initiul'e *—J \e. sriQUiry, sn rdarice with law. as ear!y as pGS3ible, within u r-iEGsiuFifsbia p£lliiud. Tf the respondent No.2 pronoses to ho!d an enquiry aguinst the petitioner. the petitioner shouid not be kept in a lurch for such u iOFiy p&FtGG. -Shri Ajay bwivedi, lesmed beputy' Sovt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No- 1 to 3 submitfi that if an ennuiry is pr'oposed, the sanie shul! be concluctec! within u period of three inon'ri-iS from the dute of receipt of u copy of this ordar. Tn wsw of the foregoing. according to learried counse! appeurmg fop -riie petitioner, nothing survi'ves iri this petition for ud lijdiCQtiGFi. Accoi'dinyly, 'H'ie uiatter aEtarids iisfiposed G'f. ^4u ordsr osto costs- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SSSS -S-3SS ^~';S^r£^tS'^