1 2025:CGHC:4628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 703 of 2025 Ashok Sharma S/o Late Shri B.N. Sharma Aged About 62 Years Working As Head Clerk Cum Accountant, Nagar Panchayat Baradwar, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate of Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Directorate of Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.30 19:01:52 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased call for entire records of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry within specific time period and also provide necessary cooperation in the departmental enquiry, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant ad hoc promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer to the petitioner as given to other person vide order dated 26/12/2024. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry which was initiated on 26.06.2023 is yet to be concluded. It has been argued that vide memo dated 27.06.2024, the State Government has issued a notification stating that the departmental enquiry should be and must be concluded within a period of one year, however, the same has not been concluded. Hence, a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental enquiry, which was initiated against the petitioner. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner shall be concluded within a specified time frame as granted by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as upon appreciating the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the fact that the State Government has issued a notification to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of one year, the Enquiry Officer, i.e. respondent authorities is directed to conclude the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of 2½ months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as the petitioner is going to retire on 30.04.2025. 7. With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh