§lng“’ ~NH§£v IN THE HON’BLE CHHATI'ISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR w.P.No. K3} /2005 (5.3.) //KRISHNA DAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/o. LATE SHRI VISHNATH DAS, OCCUPATION EX-EMPLOYEE KHALASI, BAILADILA IRON ORE PROJECT, R/O. QR.NO.TYPE II/79 KIRANDUL, DISTI'. DANTEWADA, (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1‘. NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, BAILADILA IRON ORE PROJECT, DEPOSIT NO.14 &11/C, KIRANDUL, DIS'IT. Dantewada (C.G.) DIRECTOR (PRODUCTION) N.M.D.C. LIMITED, HYDERABAD SENIOR MANAGER (MECH) N.M.D C. LIMITED, BIOP DEPOSIT No.14 & 1I/C KIRANDUL, DISTI'. DANTEWADA (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. _\,$ W Shri P.K.C.Tiwuri, Senior Ac counse] for ‘rhe pe'l'i‘rioner'. Shri Vinod Deshmu‘kh, a‘ advance copy. Heard. Learned counsel for The pe' punishmen’r order(Annexure P;1]‘ wh‘hou? considering The meri'rs 0+ are yarious Saches in’The order m On The ofher hand learr submits fhm‘ fhere is an ah‘ema‘r 33 of The $Tahding Order and 1'he remedy, has direchy apprm should be dismissed as the was? I have heard The learned counsel for The par-Ties aT lengTh. 3f The peTiTioner are governed by Admi’rfedly, fhe services The provisions of STanding Ordel', applicable in This ease. There is, Clause 33. The quesTion of facTs also a provision of appeal vide ' which _ have been raised ' vide ThispeTiTion, i can well . be gone/ inTo by voca're wi‘ih Shri Avinash Mishra, a :unsel for The respondents on 'i‘i'ioner submi‘rs Thai The impugne has been passed on 30.1.2003 ”-ihe case. He submii's ‘iha‘r ihere id prays for i‘rs quashmen‘h ed counsel for The respondenfs ive remedy of appeal under Clause 'lhe pei'i'rionerl wifhou‘r exhausfing xched This CourT and The peTiTio iold. / " T”ae. GilPRJ—FSI'78 —3;"200( 450,000. d n ‘ WPM‘ Wm m ZQQ f emm (W) a: aimm 1.3.2005 XI-— HC?8 4 Wé?‘)@\ mm m 200$ mm (Wu) WWW! ~ L P mm wm $3ifvfq37ra?! fhe appelIaTe au’rhor'i‘fy and a deTer‘minafion and finding on ‘rhe poin‘i's raised can be recorded by him. If is we” se‘H'led Thaf in wrif Jurisdic‘rion the Cour‘r‘canno‘f exercise H's powers as an appeliafe aufhorify in The depar‘rmen‘ml proceedings. The pe‘ri‘rioner is having aH'er‘naTive efficac s remedy, Thai“ should be firsfiy exhaus‘red by him. Wifheuf making any ommenf on The merifs of The case, fhe pe‘ri‘rion is disposed ‘of aif f is sTage wi'rh an observafion Tha‘r ‘rhe pefi‘iioner may avail fhe r medy of appeai and if any grievance remains afier' The some, f he may again approach ’rhis Coum‘ af appropriafe siage. A? This sfage, iearn‘d counsel for The peTiTioner submi‘rs ‘iha'i The pefi’rioner has also rayed for inferim relief in rela‘rion f0 refen‘l’ion of ‘l'he quar'rer an he maybe permiffed To pray for such relief in appeal also. The pefi‘rioner may r gise fhis ground before The appellaTe auThoriTy which may be co sidered by The appellaTe auThoriTy in accordance wiTh law. IT I madeclear ThaT This CourT has noT expressed any opinion on an poinT. i u h i