HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4743 of 2005 Petitioner M. P. Rafhore, S/o Shri Rupnarayaa, aged about 50 years, Revenue Inspector, R/o Luxndpur^ P.0. & Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhatdsgarh, through tlie Secretaxy, DepartDient of Revenue, D,K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) 2, The CoUector (Discipliaary Aufhority), Distt. Raigarh, CoUectorate Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 3. Shri S. K, Dewangan (Departaiental Enquity OfEicer) Deputy CoUector, CoUectorate Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Neelkaiith Malviya, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1 and 2. None for the respondent No.3, despite service ofnotice. ORDBR (Passed on this 28th Day ofApril, 2009) The petitioner seeks a writ for quashiag offhe entihre proceedmgs ofthe departmental enquiiy, iaitiated agaiast him on fhe ground fhat fhe charges leveUed agafcast the petiUoner iadicates the prejudice and bias aad fhe conduct of fhe enquiry ofHcer as well as fhe discipluiaxy authority was uot proper. The petitioner has made a representation before the respondent No.2 for changiag the enquiry officer but no action has been taken and the enquiry officer has proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner, while working as Revenue Inspector, was charge- sheeted for several irregularities. A departmental enquiry was initiated agabist him and accordiag to the petitioner, he could not appear before the enquiry officer on account of mardages of his son aad daughter. y—~ 4. 8. Thakur This Court vide iateriin order dated 28.9,2005 directed fhat no final order shall be passed/issued by fhe discipUnaiy authority in the matter of departmental enquiry tUl the next date of hearmg. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner subxnits that fhe enquiry has been coiapleted but fhe enquiry report could not be suppUed to the petitioner. Accordiag to learaed coiiinsel appearing for the respondents/State the order has already been made ou 29.6.2005 (Annexure R/5), which is not chaUenged in ftds petitlon. Learaed counsel appeariiig for the petitioner subniits that the above order dated 29,6.2005 was never conmiunicated to fhe petitioner. In view of the above, without goiag iato the inerits of the case, since fhe order has been passed aad no challenge to fhe said order has been made by fhe petitioner, this petition has become iafructuous. Thus, fhe petition is dismissed as havmg become infructouious. However, Uberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to take recourse on aU the grounds available to him, under provisions of law, if so advised. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge