C^P ^) -L^^l^ SB IHE STAIE ?EMIBISTRATIVS TRIBON^ ffiIWCH AT RAIPUR O.A.NO. 3S1WWEW f 1997 •fe. '-H.S-.Sldar S/s aiarat Siagh'Si.da.c', aged a&out 35 years,; rasideat of a't Halkharoda SLocls, Halkhaffoaa tahsit Salttl Dlstric-t BIlaspur (BP) APPLICAHT S B D k-; -J. l* Ihe State of Maai^'aPradesIi,1 Through 'the Sscsa-basy Sapsctmsat ®f Paaichayaf and Social Walfara (Raral EagtneeFJ.Bg Sertrtce) VallalA aiawan* BHOP . 2, l^s Coll®ctor(DevelopmentBcanch) Btlaspur { }». 3» Gonmissioner ,Bilaspur Division, Bllaspur •( ) « RESPONDENTS OETAILS^-QF a??I<ICATroN 8 TC-78y VJ-OTI "tii<4in<i^ u>-a1<d<i&, R)ril^iy'< ^_ \\J, P.Qi'J t^ .23>^/b^ *ll*1c41 ?BW 3TT^?T IRcp (ijclijcl^) ^20 aii^siwR'iith cP'ITSII^THCTira; SRiT8R^fi?T3lA?T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manjndra Moh^ 28-01-2010 Sh@-V. 6. Tiwari, oounsel foi) 'prafo'Ili ii*inV^'feiSt <Rf+5;M ^3if^iT3n^?r n Shrivastava, J, the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panei Lawyel' for the State/respondents. With the consent of leamed heard finally. By the instant petition, the ri ;ounsel for the parties, the petition is ititioner has assailed the order datea 20-12-1995 (Annexure A-10) passei)) by the Collector, Bilaspur by which the penalty ofstoppage ofone incre^nent with cumulative effect has been imposed. According to the petitiotier, the order sufFers (rom vanous illegalities and it has been passed enquiry as oontemplated under F\ (Classification, Control & Appeal] Iwlthout holding regular departmenta! 'ule 14 of the IVi.P. Civil Services Ruies, 1966. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the [^etitioner has placed reliance in oase s'Kulwant Singh Giil Versus Stat^ ofPunjab, 1991 Supp.(1}SCC SM. Learned counsel further submits tl~|at aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has also preferred a M.P. Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, various grounds but the same has r^mained pending tili dat Learned State oounse] whi the order of imposition of penalty' d| the same has been passed in a| material brought during the oourse| was given opportunity of hearing to evision petition under Rule 29 of the 1966 before:,the respondent Mo.3 on |e referring to' his reply submitted that bes not suffers from any illeaalitv and fccordance M'ith law on the basis of |of the enqyiry in which the petrtioner show cause. » ^aa^ C-78 ywi T«|<<|(?)«,y-rfl'M^id, Rldwy'< rf^ ^..Lte.7).w..il^t3.^ *11*101 ^TTT^ •" 3IT^9T iRcp (ijcifjd.g) ^20/ an^CTcRr^iiw awan^ariCTro :}. ^, The petitioner lays stress having been preferred under the n respondert'autborities to decide th am of the considered op is challenged by filing statutor^- availabte to an employee under tl part of the appellate/revisional appropriate decision on the appeal. jjpon the fact that the revision petition |es, it was obligatory on the part of the same eithertine wav or the otner. ijiion that once the order or punshment ^ppeal or revision invoking trie r.gnt service rules, it is obligatory on the juthority to apply its mind and take revision. Acoordingly, in my opinior| directing respondent authorities Annexure A-11 expeditiously, aftg|i grounds raised by the petitioner grounds as may be taken by the p( the petitioner's revision (Annexure) from the date of receipt of a copy o|f With the aforesaid directiol' terms as stated above. It is made olear that this t merits ofthe case. *l^fra<I1'i ii*inV^"fai<9 <[u|<^|< ??3rf^H3iit?r interest of justice would be served in to decide the petitioner's revision due application of mind to vanous his revision petition and such other •titioner. Respondent No.3 shali decide A-11) within a period of three months this order. i, the petition is disposed on the above ! :ourt has not.expressed any opinjon on the Sd/-. ^ _ | Manindra MohanShrivastava| • 3'udge • : • - ,M » rl': S3 li^