c^/^. IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. ^2^-^ / 2010 PETITIONER Thakur Ram Chandrakar, S/o Bali Ram Chandrakar, Aged about 58 years, Sahayak Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Panchayat - Rasni, Post Office ~ Rasni, P.8.- Aarang, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. N ..--y ^s^" \v^'1/ ^f^y ^...^^^ ^^ .-'.^ |J»< <-> O^ 2. 0-,.^^.> ..^ ^'^ '^^! ^ ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretaiy, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Raipur-(C.G.) Director, Panchayat Avam Samaj Sewa Sanchnalay, Raipur-(C.G.) Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) Zila Panchayat Raipur, Through - Chief Executive Officer, Raipur-(C.G.) Janpad Panchayat Aarang, Through - Chief Executive Officer, Aarang, Distt. Raipur- (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. 4. 5. 's^^ssiaw^wse^ H|GHCp^URT,QFCHHATTIS.GARH:,BiLA.SPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) N0.2278 OF 2010 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS Thakur Rarn ChandraRar Versus State of Chhattlsaarh & Others (Writ Petltion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. .ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 6th day of May, 2010) Heard learned counsei for the parties. 1.. By thls petition, the petitioner impuans the order dated 30-9-2009'(Annexure - P/1), whereby he was piaced under suspension, on the ground that within a period of 45 days, as prescribed under the provisions of Ru!e 9 of the Chhattisaarh Civli Services (Classifjcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Ruies, 1966") no charge sheet was Issued. Thus, the suspension order deser^es to be quashed. Shri Agrawai, Searned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that the charge sheet was issued on 19-11-2009 (Annexure - P/2), but there Is no further progress, even after filing of the reply to the show cause notice. Thus, on this count aiso the suspension order deserves to be quashed. 2. it Is weii settied that If an order of suspension is by an authority, the charge sheet has to be issued within 45 days ?as % -2.' %.,.^Jy ^.T^". ^^!~ ^^^^^ Gowri from the date of order of suspension under the provisions of Ruie 9 (2-a) ofthe Rules, 1966. 3. In the case'on hand; charge sheet was not issued within the stipujated period, however, having regard to the fact that the suspension order vv'as passed on 30-9-2009, the petitioner has not approached this Court Immediateiy after cornpietion of 45 days, but he waited for issue ot'chargesheet on 19-11-2009, the discipiinarv enauirv is in procsress and accordinQ to the learned counsel for the petitioner 5 months have been elapsed, nothing' has been passed. 4. Djscipiinary enquiry takes its own time. In the case on hand,, 5 months cannot be heid as inordinate deiay. Having regard to the facts situation of the case where the petitioner has not approached this Court within 45 days or immediately after 45 days for revocation of the suspension order, the petitioner may not be entitled to benefit of provisions ot' sub-rule (2-a) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 when the charge sheet has been issued and the departmentai proceeding is pending. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itselt'. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge