HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Petitioner Respondents (Respondent No.1-5) WritADpealNo.147 of 2011 Nand Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Late Shri Bal Govind Chandrakar, aged about 34 years, R/o Dawda Colony, Pachpedhi Naka, HIG - 20, District - Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Cooperative Society, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. CG State Cooperative marketing Federation Ltd., through Secretary, CG State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., 880, Civil Lines, HeadOffice, Raipur(CG) 3. Managing Director, CG State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., 880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur (CG) 4. Chief General Manager (Marketing), CG State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., 880, Civil Lines, Head Office, Raipur (CG) 5. District Marketing Officer, CG State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Mahasamund, district Mahasamund C.G. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2f1l OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006 @ Present: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri AS Kachchawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No.1. JUDGMENT (15th April, 2011) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) AppellanV petitioner Nand Kumar Chandrakar has filed this intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 05.03.2011 , passed in WP(S) No.1218/2011. 3) The appellanV petitioner in his writ petition was challenging the order dated 07.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner and his other similarly situated 14 persons were placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry against them. 4) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties did not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the appellant's suspension and the writ petition, therefore, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.03.2011. 5) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that in fact a departmental enquiry has already commenced against the appellant by issuing charge-sheet against him. iy-'V^K^;,. /y\ 1 w 4 ^.-.^'J ^:y 3^ 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity either in the impugned order whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter of the appellant's suspension or order dated 07.02.201 1, whereby the appellant was placed under suspension. 7) The intra Court appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu