SUNIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

(2.) The stand of the petitioner is that he is facing various departmental inquiries which were instituted by issuance of different charge-sheets. The petitioner is not responsible for the delay caused in the said inquiry. The inquiries are pending against him for the reasons solely attributable to the department. In the meantime, the petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest but because of pendency of departmental inquiries, his fate was kept in the sealed cover. The sealed cover may be directed to be opened by the respondents.

(3.) Shri Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal- (1995) 2 SCC 570 to bolster his submission that because of unreasonable delay in conducting and completing the inquiries, the sealed cover may be directed to be opened. He also relied on State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan-(1998) 4 SCC 154. During the course of arguments, Shri Ghildiyal fairly submitted that in this petition, petitioner is not challenging the charge-sheets and validity of departmental inquiries. His singular prayer is confined to open the sealed cover. He further admitted that the departmental inquiries based on the charge-sheets dated 2.2.2000, 25.10.2007, 9.12.2009, 6.2.2010 and 18.2.2010 are pending. Since inquiries are being delayed by the respondents, as directed in the chase of Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), the respondents may be directed to open the sealed cover.