1 2025:CGHC:7677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1192 of 2025 1 - Jagdish Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Bharosa Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years Retired O.A. Grade-I, Office Of The Junior Engineer, C.S.P.D.C.L., Junapara, Lormi, District Mungeli, Resident Of Village Jarondha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Superintending Engineer (Circle) C.S.P.D.C.L., Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Division C.S.P.D.C.L., Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) ... 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. S.E.B/Circle/Estt./G/5075, Bilaspur, dated 28.11.2022. 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 retired on superannuation age from the post of Office Assistant Grade-I from the office of the Executive Engineer (O & M) Division, C.S.P.D.C.L., Mungeli on 31.12.2024 without paying retiral benefits even he is not being giving pension. The petitioner was earlier charge-sheeted and departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide letter No. S.E.B./Circle/Estt./G/5075, Bilaspur, dated 28.11.2022. The same was served to the petitioner on 3 06.12.2022 by respondent No. 2. The petitioner submitted reply and defense on 15.12.2022 but yet the departmental enquiry has not been concluded nor decided even no opportunity is given to him. The respondents are delaying the enquiry only to harass the petitioner by keeping enquiry 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 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 28.11.2022 may be directed to decide 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 departmental enquiry within a period of two months. 4 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat