\A S.B. (Service Matterl INTHElIONBLEHlGHeOURTOFCHHAmSCiARHAT BILASFUR fCFlHATnSGARH) WRrFPETmONfS)NO.!a>ol^/2010. y ^.' • :.. PETITIONER: ^•^^ y-^J^'^^ ?.v>.^•••'^ -^^^""^J&- •^y.^1"' Rapheal Toppo, son of Late Sunon Toppo, aged about 51 years, wprking as Food and Civil Supply Inspector, Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. .--1^" versus ^ Resoondents 1. State o^Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Food Civil Suppty and ConsumerProtectionMantralaya, DJC.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Ghhattisgarh, /^ •• ; • ''• ' 2. Goinmissioner, Food, Civil Supplyand ConsumerProteGtioh,Sanchanalaya, ^Chhattisgarhj Raipyr. 3. Collector (Food Branch) District Jasfapur, Chhattisgarh. WRTT PET[TION HNDER AKIIGLE 226 OF'THE GONSTrrUTION OF- INDIA r-HC—78. sn^f w R-I 'OTI 3P^I SBlitl imic'?rw*fras y^ ^wwi, ws\wie, r°«ni^;i< .012110... 3II^T'(R?i' (1pf3^t?) ¥^TWT^^ ^t^l <»>i<<!<-f<fl-itdtRff ^ fs^6 <.piit^i< ^sffinsffi^i 8B: Hon'bte 8h»tMaaind»aMotaa 8te|»aataWB,J 28.6.2010 <X)tmsel fitr fhe Shri^astava, petitioner. Paael Lawyer for fhe Shri C.J.K. Rao, SIiri Ghaadresh State/respondents, on advaace <jopy. Heard. This petition bas becn filcjl by fte petitioiier aggrieved by oida- dated 31at Jiity, 2009 (Amiexure p-1), whereby a penaBy ofwithltolding one iacrement wlfh cuniulativ|s effect has been imposed on thc petitioner aflter holdiag aa eiiq4ny iiader the provision of C.G. CMvil Semces (Classification, Control Rules of 19661. Admittedly, tfae pctitioner as is available imder the representation dated 17.5.20] respondent No.S/GoUector (Fo< penalty, however, the same has l May, 2010 (Aimexure P-3). ttas RiUes Leamed counsel for fhe impugned order is palpabty Ulej imposcd wifhout hoUmg detailed &, Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for sbort "tlie not prefcrred any statutory appcal, of 1966. It is stated fhat a '.O (Anncxitre P-2) was made to id Branch), who Iiad imposed thc icen rejected vide hls memo dated 21Bt pjetitioncr furfher submits that as the i^al, because inajor penalty has been eaquuy, fhis petition has been fiied. t..^;iil^Ji]UL^;Sj ,^t:f-^:''"-^, ^•"'\.:S.^^K f£^\ ? 'tt^.fc t sffya^ ^. ^ •^w <S'°=1 'tlWW^, 8>1ll'y<|(o, fi|dl-Lltj,< *ii*«nithHiq» "^200 sn^i 1(r?qT (4<<fj»<<^r) sn^rw WM ^T 13TT^?T st>*iiq> Vfsareexi Taking into consideration petitioner has an alteraative departmental appeal iinder the Rutes of 1966, atl thc g?»unds agitated before the AppeUate alteraative reiaedy, in the to exercise my dlscretion to entei |that aganst the ordcr of peiialty, fbe and efficacious reinedy of fiHng t>rovision contamed in Rule 23 of fhc iaised before fhis Court covSd weU be |Aufttority. In view of existence of ofthe case, I ani not ioclined jtain fhfo petition at ttus stage. circuiAstances Accordmgty, this petition to fhe petitioncr to approach fhe undcr fhe Riries of 1966. In case Authori.ly shaU decide fhe same <M<4ld<fll 'RTR?ff^ 'fe^- <pr|^|< ^T srfiiii.sn^r finatty disposed off eesarving liberty AppeUate Auftiority by filmg au appeal any such appeal fa filed, fhe AppeUate accordance wtth law. —£nsb"w'"w