High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/3406/2019disposed off

Yashwant Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-05-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3406 of 2019 Yashwant Dewangan S/o Shri A.R. Dewangan Aged About 55 Years R/o Neeraj Kunj, Ramji Yadav Gali, Katulbod, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post Office, Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director General Of Police (DGP), Police Head Quarter (PHQ), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Office, Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) Office Of Inspector General Of Police 32 Bunglow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Of Police (S.P.) Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State :

Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/05/2019 1.

The limited prayer that the petitioner has made in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the departmental appeal, which the petitioner has filed and which is pending consideration before the respondent No.2, at the earliest. 2.

The facts of the case is that the petitioner has been imposed with a punishment by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 29.11.2018, against which the petitioner had preferred a first appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Durg, who too has rejected the appeal vide order dated 25.01.2019. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred a second appeal before

-2the respondent No.2 on 05.03.2019 and since then the appeal is still pending consideration before the respondent No.2. 3.

Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the second appeal of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 4.

It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the respondent No.2, so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved