(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: -
(2.) SHRI Arun Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 9.10.2014, Annexure P -1, and his headquarter was fixed at Shahdol. This order was put to test in WP No. 6405/2014 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said petition on 17.10.2014. The petitioner was permitted to prefer an appeal within fifteen days along with the stay application. It is contended that if appeal and stay application is preferred, it will be lawful for the appellate authority to deal with the same expeditiously. It was directed that till decision of stay application by the appellate authority, the suspension order to the extent petitioner's headquarter is changed, shall remain stayed. On the strength of this order, it is contended that the petitioner preferred an appeal along with the stay application but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. Neither the appeal nor stay application has been decided till date. The petitioner is not getting subsistence allowance and, therefore, he is in a very bad shape. It is further contended that although a charge sheet has been issued on 9.11.2014, till date no enquiry officer has been appointed. The petitioner is due for his retirement in September, 2015 and, therefore, this petition may be disposed of by directing the authorities to decide the appeal within a reasonable time. The subsistence allowance be paid within a stipulated time and disciplinary proceedings be concluded within a reasonable time.
(3.) PER Contra, Shri Pravin Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents submits that petitioner has not filed the appeal memo and stay application along with the petition and, therefore, it is not clear whether the petitioner has filed any such appeal and application or not. It is further contended that there is no pleading in the petition about non -receipt of subsistence allowance. Shri Newaskar further submits that the petitioner has not prayed for early disposal of the disciplinary proceedings in the prayer clause.