-l^r^ ^l ^s &t ^v^ c |N»S^f BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. ^5\b / 2011 PETITIONER ^•^y ^^^ \*' *»' /•••\^s^^ .^ ^••y^ ^yvy "^••""" :^ Manvendra Chakravarti, S/o Shri S.B. Chakravarti, aged about 43 years, Peon, Zila Antyavayasayi Sahkari Samiti, Dhamtari, R/o. Lalbagh, Mahendra Nagar Colony, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. / Chhattisgarh State Antyavaysayi Sahakari Vitta Avam Vikas Nigam, Ltd., Raipur Through its Managing Director, B-9,Sector -5 Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector cum President, Zila Antyavayasayi Sahkari Samiti, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ 3. Collector,DurgDistt.Durg(C.G.) 4. Executive Officer, Zila Antyavayasayi Sahkari Samiti, Durg (C.G.) 5. Executive Officer, Zila Antyavayasayi Sahkari Samiti, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA f^,^ 3?T^T^T t^ri^sn^T $^^ich ^f^a ^N^ ^IK-^' ^ ^oc[ ^|i^|<nq 31 ?FrT. ^ftTFT^. fa<rtl^y WWrlT^W^ 31T^?T Tp^ ..y..:f..-..6sll^?..;^^'t5/)) T^ 'fN^T' 37T^T'^TT^H:'Rf^T SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastava.4 10^5-2011 copy. Ms. Naushina Ali, counsei foi Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel The petitioner has flied Ittiepetitioner. |for respondents 1, 4 and 5 on advance jttiis writ j^ttfion aggrieved by non- consideration of the case of the p^titioner for promotion to tihe next higher post of Cterk Grade - lil. A depart|nental enquiry has been opened against the petitioner in the year 1996 by is^ said departmiental enquiry has remsli assertion of the petitioner that numtter of persons junior to ttie pettioner have been promoted but because ofthe tendency of the departmentel enquiry, ttie petition that the officers placed at that the departmental enquiry ope^ expeditiously and within a reasonab eariy as possible. Ther^pondent b the petitioner for his claim for granl permit the award of promotion cM^I<n<i1l ^H<nf *? f^<<! iFsK^K '^S^R^TT^I uance of charge sheet dated 2171QB. The ined pending. During this period, it is the petitioner is not being promoted. tt |has been categoricatly averred jn the writ Iserial no.14 and 18 of ttie gradation Hst (Annexure P/4) have been promote<| From the averments which h^ve been made in the petition, it appeare ied in the year 1^6, has stilj remained pending and the petitioner is not fcjeing promoted. The petitioner has also made number of representations p|aced on record (Annexure P/6 and P/8), which show that the petitioner has b^en claiming promotion. The departmental enquiry ag|ainstfhe Govemment Servant cannot be continued indefinitely. The departnn|ental enquiry is requtred to be conciuded le time. The respondent No.1 is therefore, duty bound to conclude the depari|mental enquiry against the petitioner as lo.1 shoutd consider th®representation of of promotion. In case,the rul^ dto not during the pendency of tiie enqulry, [^^fm ^ XI-HC—78 . *iTHCffT »»*1ich ^^T ^I^Krl^, ^Xll'M^Ko, fc«rl|-H^< __.._..^.r£r:^l.wo • '^rlb/ ' J - ^.....^.........^.^....................^^^QQ 3TI^I XI^5F (licl(l<BI<^) 3?I1^T ^T R'lich ^tn ^T^T'^I:IW Deepti (I'KTlW ^^ 3T^?T -^- necepsary respondent N©.1shait take aii outer iimit of six months from the da( With the aforesaid observatiohs <=r>i^f<n<fli 'HW^if ^ feT^t <r^<^i< ct)'3ffim3TT^T steps to conciude enqulry within an te of receipt of copy of the order. >, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge