K D SINGH Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE respondent in this application is the original petitioner in W. P. No. 434/2008. On behalf of the respondent (the original writ petitioner) reply is filed. A copy is served to the learned Advocate General. The reply is taken on record. By this application, the applicant/ the original respondent no. 3 is seeking extension of about three months' time for completing enquiry. We have considered with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the parties the order of this court dated April 1, 2009. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner was under suspension on enquiry. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded that he is getting subsistence allowance on behalf of the original respondents. The Statement is made that out of 14 witnesses, around 12 witnesses have been examined and still two witnesses are to be examined. Those two witnesses are mainly from the police stations of the State. The learned advocate General appearing for the applicant submits that in demanding circumstances, they are required to attend the urgent exigencies and, therefore, the examination of all the witnesses could not be completed. He explained why the original respondents are seeking three months' extension of time.

(3.) THESE three months' extension of time has been opposed vehemently by the Counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner. He has made a statement in reply that 13 witnesses have been examined and only one witness is remained to be examined. He has also pointed out from the reply that there was no lethargy on the part of the original writ petitioner and he has co-operated with the enquiry Officer.