IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1262 of 2004 (S/S) Satish Chandra Sharma ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through secretary Agriculture Dehradun and Others. ……….Respondents Dated :- 04th September, 2009 Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally today at the motion hearing stage without admitting it for hearing. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 24.04.1997 passed by Director Agriculture Uttaranchal Directorate of Agriculture, Pauri and charge-sheet dated 08.05.1997. 3. It was pointed out that the petitioner could not file the reply against the charge-sheet. The inquiry as well as criminal case proceeded simultaneously against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has already been convicted and sentenced for a period of 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 409 I.P.C by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30/10/2006 in Criminal Case No.42 of 1991. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence of punishment awarded by the trial Court, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge in which the petitioner has obtained bail order from the court of the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. The said appeal is still pending before the learned Sessions Judge 2 Uttarkashi. The entire records of the case is in the trial court due to which it is not possible to complete the inquiry against the present petitioner. 4. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of the justice it is directed that the Session Judge shall dispose of the said appeal expeditiously, preferably with two months. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Session Judge, Uttarkashi. In case, there is nay difficulty to dispose of the said appeal, the record, which is required for the inquiry, would also be provided to the Inquiry Officer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that 24th September, 2009 would be convenient to the petitioner to be present there. The petitioner will appear on 24th September, 2009 before the Inquiry Officer as before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom the record is available and shall made inspection of the said records available in the court. If the inspection could not be complete on that day, the inspection may be done on the next day by the petitioner in the presence of the Inquiry Officer under the supervision of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further assured this Court that he would cooperate the Inquiry Officer on every date and he will appear before the Inquiry Officer as and when required. If the Inquiry Office requires the said record, the Court shall pass an order providing the said documents under the terms and conditions which the court deems fit and the Inquiry Officer will comply the said direction of the court. The Inquiry Officer is further directed to complete the inquiry within months from the date of the reply submitted by the petitioner. 3 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. Interim order dated 04.11.2004 stands vacated. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 04.09.2009 Ravi