vwvt:' ,K^' HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR W.P.ISl No. 3676 of 2008 ^. PETITIONER Awadh Ram Lahare, s/o Madhav Ram Lahare, 50 years, Block Education Officer, Bilaigarh, Dis'tt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh ^hrough the Secretary, School Education Departinent, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director, Public Instruction, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Rev.), Sub- Division Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G) 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur WMTPETtnON UNDER ARTICLE 226 8t 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Praful Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, P.L. for the State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (14.07.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension dated 15.10.2007 as also the order dated 20.5.2008 further corrected as 30.5.2008 passed by the concemed authdrity in the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. The brief facts are that on account of certain irregularities cominitted in issuance of experience certificate, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P-1). Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the concerned authority, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P(S).729/2008, which came up for hearing on 04th of Februaiy 2008. On that date, this Court M f^'" ' _ ^ y ik. ^•<s?";»i, i 1 'l@iyi i ^ l%'rfj7 ^ •ys^91'' W.P.('S~).No.3676/2008 dismissed the petition as not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory efficacious remedy of appeal provided under the M.P. (CG) Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966. Mr. Praful Bharat leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter a duly constituted departmental appeal was filed before the concerned authority, but the concerned authority did not apply its mind to the grounds raised in ^he appeal and ultimately passed a cryptic order on 20.5.2008/30.5.2008 (Annexure P-2). His submission is that the concept of appeal has always an element of disposal by reasoned order which may stand the scrutiny ,of the higher authority or a Court when it comes before it. He further submits that the reasons are the live links between the orders passed and the authority passing fhe orders and if the order is lacking in reasons, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Secondly, he argues that even otherwise also the order of suspension appears to be an order in contemplation of departmental proceedings because it relates to the commission of an alleged irregularity and in that situation, it was incumbent upon the authorities to issue a charge-sheet to the petitioner within the statutory period whichever was applicable in his case. However, no charge sheet is issued till now and in that manner also the order of suspension stands revoked under the provisions of sub-rule 5(a) of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules and the said aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the authority. He prays for quashing of the suspension order as also the order passed by the appellate authority. On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposes these arguments and supports the action taken by the State. Admittedly, the order of suspension was passed on 15.10.2007 and if this order was in contemplation of a departmental enquiry, necessarily a charge was required to be issued to the petitioner within the statutory period stipulated in that behalf. ,.; Vfi, t ;u';»-:1' v ^ ^,. ^ ^ .lfSei"-'' W.P.('S').No.3676/2008 Mr. Bharat makes a categorical statement that till date the petitioner has not received the charge sheet. Ms. Jain is not in a position to fumish information as to whefher the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner or not and whether the Govemment intends to issue a charge sheet. Be that as it inay, but the position reniains that petitioner is sdll under suspension and he has not received the charge sheet by now. As far as the order passed by the appellate authority is concerned, admittedly it does not disclose the reasons. Where there is a concept of appeal, the appellate order is always to be passed by assigning reasons and if the reasons are not mentioned for passing an order in the appeal, the order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In view of the above, the appellate order dt.20-5-2008/30-5- 2006 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in the matter of the petitioner keeping in mind the grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the validity of the said order. It is also open to the concerned authority to see as to whether any charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner or not and if it was required to be issued and was not issued in tirae, the effect thereof. As the petitioner is under suspension since 15.10.2007, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal as early as possible preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production/receipt of the copy of this order. With the above observations/directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. -——___& C.C. as per rules. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge