1 2025:CGHC:5072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 789 of 2025 • Milan Ram Verma S/o Late Shri Narayan Verma Aged About 50 Years Working As Garden Ranger And Posted At Jungle Safari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versu 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Conservator of Forest Raipur, Circle Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Forest Divisional Officer Jungle Safari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and proprietary of the impugned departmental proceeding by the respondents authorities whereby the respondent authorities has initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the false and fabricated allegation. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was initially 2 appointed as Forest Guard posted at Taurenga, in the years 1986, since then petitioner was performing his duty efficiently without any complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Taurenga but the petitioner has not been relieved for transfer and rejected his transfer order, and again transferred to Jungle Safari Raipur on his own expenses and the petitioner has been relieved and posted at Jungle Safari Raipur on 31.08.2024 since then the petitioner is performing his duty. The petitioner was submitted application for leave to go out of station for treatment of his wife who is suffering from kidney ailment at Hyderabad and also for the treatment of his younger son who is suffering from lever related ailment, due to this, the petitioner was absent and not regular in his duty despite of that, the respondent authorities have framed 04 charges against the irregularities of the petitioner, which is absolutely false and fabricated. Thereafter, the petitioner has given reply while giving detail explanation to the framing of charges however, subsequently the respondent authorities have closed the departmental proceeding, due to said action, the petitioner is harassed and mentally tortured and it has adversely effected to his duty. Hence this petition. 3. The petitioner prays for following relief(s):- 10.1. this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal, in the interest of justice. 10.2. this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned departmental proceeding (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. 3 10.3. this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner for seeking to appoint enquiry officer for fresh enquiry within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.4. Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed instant petition for quashment of entire departmental enquiry as it is illegal however, when he was in-part of the proceedings of the departmental enquiry charges has been framed and thereafter nothing has been done by the respondent authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that he has enquired about the present stage of departmental enquiry but he is not in position to submit the same though it has been admitted that the charge-sheet has been filed on 16.12.2022 and recently the State Government has issued a circular dated 27.06.2024, according to which the departmental enquiry were directed to be concluded within a period of one year. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the State prays that the authorities may be directed to conclude departmental enquiry within some short span of time, prayer seems to be fair and reasonable. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet was issued on 16.12.2022, instead of passing any other order as prayed by the petitioner to disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.2 is 4 directed to conclude the departmental enquiry according to circular dated 27.06.2024, which is pending since more than two years as such the concerned disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within a further period of three months. 7. With this observation(s)/direction(s) instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE vaishali Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.31 17:40:31 +0530