@ (D IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.[S] No. yz43g /201¢ PETITIONER Smt. Chameli Gaikwad W/ o Pramod .KIM ‘f’ Gaikwad, aged about 40 years ,.a QgMlM' f7 Lil-«“1 ,...- R/o Vin. Birjadeeh ,Tah. Bhata para Distt. Raipur [ C.G.] i. - -;£§{§""T;7M” VERSUS ESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh , through the Commissioner Public Education De partment, Directorate D .K. S .Bhawa Raipur [C.G.] 2. The District Education Officer, Educational district Baloda Bazar, Tah. Baloda Bazar,Distt. Raipur [ C.G.] RIT PETITION A/U 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W ° R n WWWW—c: W ‘ (my; @ 1;; wag» Wm 200 mmqafjsau) W¥W ammm mmm WWI§1§£IW ‘ $a1‘maném Deepii ' $3,: Hon’bie Shri‘ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. 09-1 2-2911 Shri Neeikanih Malviya, coun ei for the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, Panei Lawy r for the State. Heard on admission. ,. fB'y' this ‘p‘efition, the peiitioner has caiied in quesiion, correciness and vaiidity of order dated 4/1 1/2011 (Annexure Pi1) by which a minor penaity has been imposed. The order has been passed by the :discipiinary auihority. i find thai the order is an appeaiabie order as thepetitione'r‘ha remedy of statutory appeai under the provisions of Chhaitisgarh Civii Services (Ciassi Ication, Controi & Appeai) Rules, 1966. Though learned counsei for t' e petitioner sought to impress upon this Court by submitting that the order of penalty h s been imposed without following procedure and there is violation of the procedu of holding enquiry, in View of the provisions contained in Rule 27 of the rules of 19$6‘ i am not inclined to entertain this petition because that ground can be raised efore the appellate Court. lt is trite that where there exists efficacious and alterna ive remedy, the writ Court would not ordinarily invoke jurisdiction except when- ord r is alleged to have been issued in violation ot' principles of natural justice or vitiate ‘ by malaflde or without jurisdiction. l do not find any such ground to entertain this petr ion. This petition is finally dispos d off reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal by filing appeal be re the competent authority. Considering that limitation been prescribed for filing statutory appeal, it is directed that if the petitioner flies appeal within a period of 45 days before the appellate authority, the authority l consider the case on its own merits without going into the question of limitation. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Sd/- r h s l