1 2025:CGHC:7690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1195 of 2025 1 - Kailash Dewangan S/o Shri Yashwant Lal Dewangan Aged About 40 Years Assistant Engineer (Zone- 2) City Division, C.S.P.D.C.L., Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mr. B.K. Sarkar Engineer, C.S.P.D.C.L., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer C.S.P.D.C.L., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manager (Human Resources) C.S.P.D.C.L., Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10:1. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner's case.” 10:2. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction against the respondents to decide the departmental enquiry No. No.C.E./B.Z./D.E./Estt./1752, Bilaspur, dated 16.7.2024 as early as possible within 2 months. 10:3. that, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ or direction as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer (Zone-2) City Division, C.S.P.D.C.L., Ambikapur. His promotion is due but with ulterior motive the respondents are not deciding departmental enquiry early and keep it pending with intent to destroy carrier of the petitioner. the petitioner has been charge-sheeted and initiated departmental enquiry was initiated vide letter No. No.C.E./B.Z./DE/Estt./1752, 3 Bilaspur, dated 16.7.2024. The petitioner submitted reply and defense on 12.8.2024 but yet the departmental enquiry has not been concluded nor decided even no opportunity is given to him. The respondents are delaying the departmental enquiry only to harass the petitioner by keeping the enquiry pending against him which is against the fundamental rights provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner prayed for his right before the respondents several times but except false assurance they did nothing only to keep pending the D. E. The respondents are duty bound to decide and consider the case early. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition with a limited prayer that the departmental enquiry which was initiated way back on 16.07.2024 may be directed to be decided immediately. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they are not having any objection and they will decide the departmental enquiry within a period of two months. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the circular dated 27.06.2024 whereby State Government has issued a direction to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of one year as such the prayer made by the petitioner is fair and reasonable. 6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to conclude the 4 departmental enquiry within a period of two months. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat