HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUE WritPetition(S)No. 1231 of2009 'L'. PETITIONER : R.N. Gupta,S/o late Shri J.L. Gupta,aged about 59 years, occupation ser^ice Presently posted as Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineeritig Department, Go\7emment of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chliattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretaiy, Department of Public Health Eiigmeermg, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Cliiiattisgarh). 2. The Principal Secretary, Departnient of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Clihattisgarh). 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department ofPublic Health Engmeering, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singli Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgai'h). 4. Chief Technical Examiner, Goveniiiient of Cliliattisgarh, Shankar Nagar, Raipyr (Chhattisgarh). 5. P.C. Dalei, aged 52 years, Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineerisig, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Sin^i Bhawan, Raipur (Clihattisgarh). (WPJT pE'rrnoN UNDER AR'I'ICLE 226 OF THE coNsiTmTioN OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Slii'i Manindra Slmvastava, 8r. Advocate with Slm A&oz Klian, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State. OBALORDER (Passed 0113rd day ofMarch, 2009) ^Vith the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of certam complamts, the Chief Technical Exairdner (for short ?CTEr) was asked to submit a detailed report. The CTE, after having spent more than ten months, submitted his report on 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/14), wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found proved. The matter was again referred to CTE to submit a fresh • report. The same was done within a period of 14 days, without afFording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. The second report was submitted under covering letter dated 03.12.2008. Leamed counsel further submits that the petitioner has not received any notice or a copy of the second report so that the petitioner could make his response to tlie second report. However, he has obtained a copy ofthe same under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'). Slm Bhatia, leamed Deputy Go^. Advocate, appearing for th^ state submits that no action would be taken on Second report without afibrding an opportunity ofhearmg to the petitioner. He further says that since the petitioner has already obtained a copy ofsecond report under the provisions of RTI Act and reply thereof has already been flled by the petitioner., no adverse action shall be taken without considering reply ofthepetitioner. This petition is premature at tliis stage. Iii view ofthe facts that the petitioner has already filed his response to the second report and no fmal order has been passed till date, it is expected that no order shall be passed without considermg reply ofthe petitioner. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri 1 Judge Saliu