3 The learned counsel appearing for Daman Administration Respondent No. 2 submitted that in the proceedings of first charge sheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24th September, 2013. Four hearings have taken place. Thereafter, enquiry officer got transferred and a new Enquiry Officer has been appointed on 10th June 2014. Thereafter, the said officer was promoted as Collector. The name of the third Enquiry Officer has already been processed and the administrator is awaiting for further orders in this regard. In respect of the second charge sheet, the learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the new administrator has taken over on 18th August, 2014. A new Enquiry Officer is being appointed now. The learned counsel, on instructions, submits that both the enquiries would be completed expeditiously. The delay occurs due to various reasons including shortage of officers, increase of work load, transfer, promotion, etc. The learned counsel had raised objection that the Petitioner ought to have approached CAT. Without exhausting alternate efficacious remedy, the Petitioner had approached this Court under writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel referred to a decision in the case of Union of India and Anr v/s Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SSC page 28. The relevant paragraph nos.14,15
