Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3758 of 2015 Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Late Raghunandan Prasad Sharma, Aged About 55 Years R/o Behind Vivekanand Aashram, Gali No. 11, P.S. Aazad Chowk, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration & Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Joint Director/ Enquiry Officer, Urban Administration & Development, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
3. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Prasoon Bhaduri, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 15/10/2015 Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned show cause notice dated 18.09.2015 and inquiry report whereby the petitioner has been asked to submit his reply within 15 days failing which appropriate disciplinaryl action would be taken against him.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has raised several points in this petition however considering the well settled legal position he may be permitted to raise all the points which have been raised in the present petition before the disciplinary authority.
State counsel submits that if the petitioner is keen to raise all the points which have been raised in the present petition before the disciplinary authority he is at liberty to do so but he will not be given any additional time or will not be permitted to prolong the disciplinary action.
Considering the submission made by the parties the present petition is disposed of.
In case the petitioner files any reply to the show cause notice it is expected from the disciplinary authority to act in accordance with law. Under no circumstances the disciplinary authority will prolong the matter and it is expected from the authority concerned to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to act strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge suguna