y ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH •^-' . .- ' •7:^.\.:,^ . ^ WRLTPETITIONN050S3 OE 2004 PETIIIONER^ Q ^! ^l NeeIkanth-Siaha^S/a Anaiui^&am, Aged about 3S' years, Removed from the post of General Mazdooi Grade-H. Soutb East o ^3. ' O ^...f—^'^J' Coalfields Limited, Bagd^wa --_y..«f"""" Project, Smgali Sub Area, District i..—-""".".(?:.A.l-""*r"" .....••• ^"'"','~'^,TC'~" -"^ -~-'~' .t.**"" p(8 ^-1<-^ Korba(€hhattisgarfa)r Versiis RESPONDENTS: 1. ^^^^"^ ^,. -^ 'f' ^^'^ •"' ^"^' 2. -. 3. South East Coalfields Limited, Througli^ its ehaumaa-Cum- ManaguigJDirestor, Bilaspur (C.G.). Deputy General Manager, South East Goalfields Limrted, Delwadihi^ Singali Sub Area, District Korba (C,G.). Mines Superintendent, South East CoalfieMs Limited, BagdewaProject, District Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 C THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^T ?R, ^^trms, T^'CT^'g3: k(-P • 5~OS-Z a 4 .& Shri 1-i.S.Patel, counsel for the petitloner. /e.r takes notice on beh Hedrd on admission. The petition has been fii 28/29.6.2004(i4nnexure P- I) b rrom nis services. The case of the petitioner on account of his absence from was fjled by the petitioner and petitioner. The Enquiry Officei the charges proved, leyeied aga nnexure P-3) and ^d against the impugned order dated which the petitionei' has been rsmoved is that a charge sheet was i'ssued to him the duty. A rep!y to that charge sheet i1+ie same was not found satisfactory, on which a departmentai enquiry w]p.s djrected to be conducted cgainst the submitted his report in which he found nst the petitioner. After submission of e enqulry report, a show cau^ notice was issued to the petitioner on ^eply was sought by the disciplinary authority within 7 days. The r^ply was also filed by the petitioner to that show cause notice. The dis^:ip!inary authority after cor.sidering the repiy, passed impugned ords.r ^f punishment which is under challenge before this Court. g-=r.^}TCiT?;F?I. ^fl'RFIs', 1si~s].gq. *<i's?-;wT fipiieff ^R 200 %. KTI^ | 1 n"""" ,» 'n [••isii^iSiK^Ml'. fr, ^ ^ / 53-SiW Ift5? ;°R»! - -^ — '^'f^T^i^TR' T17SF?;;TF °^ 7%^T '^f^^Zi? ^ ®T!'^CT5??c^T Admittedly, there is a proj/ision of dppeal in the standing order, applicable in case of the petition$r. The app6n! has not been filed. Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that he moy be 1 permitted to file an appeal ag4inst the impugned order and if some grievance remains, a liberty ma^ be granted to him to come to thi: Court aqain. I Since on efficacious altqrnative remedy is avciiable to the petltioner, this Court is of tjie opinion that the same should be e.xhausted before comiria to the ferit Court in accordance with law. The prayes- is altowed. 1 The petitioner may file cm a|?peal before the appropriate authority', i which shall be decided by him in accordance with law. If any grievance 1 remains to the petitioner, he ijiay again approach to this Court in an appropriate forurn. With the aforesaid obse^vations, the petition stands finally Certified copy as per ruies. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge flf.i^l