-~~~~ ~T1 "s -i q. -t o ^' "3 u> 1 r> ro y> "s 3 "3 s ro Q 3" ^ (ft 0 Ul 0 •^ nc -t- h -3 "'. •< 9 ? ^ n » ^ ^.t if d ^\ •,.» ^ '%/.;..^ 1'%\~'SZ \. ''%3'., 9 ^%"^ ^., ''lr ^"\ us -o c:-s 1^-^,r> Cl -(• N -5 1 u» -0 -<• ui c "3 <n B uj y c 13 a Ul n-+ U3 Qc:-»• ~s 10 (I0 3 1 ~5 a- rois cn -+ g y s ntn ~s 1 y> o3 o ^ -4-1 J: G^ IMo 1—t, H m r- m n Qc n y^^ -I s w ro S2 m C3 mzn a: € aiit. '" WRrTPETTTtON UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OFIN&IA A '•i'l, ,0 A,^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETTOONER WMT PETmON (S) No. 1746 of 2011 Dr. Bhuneshwar Prasad Soiii. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.S.Koshy, Advoeate with Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Slm Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate Gsneral for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 31st day ofMarch, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/5) wherein the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that a charge sheet has been filed against tfae petitioner before the Court ofJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, on 03.10.2006. 2. Shri Koshy, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the proviso to sub section (l)(b) ofRule 9 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Sendces (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, the word 'after sanction of prosecution by the Govemment' has been ineoqiorated by notification dated 26.02.2007. Ttius, till sanction is granted, the trial may not commence. Shri Koshy farther submits that on the ground of fhe above stated statutory provision, the petitioner has preferred a revision wherein the proceedings before the Trial Court has been stayed. Thus, the impugned suspension orderis bad in law, unjust and vitiated. 3. On perusal ofthe aboveprovision, itis cleartfaatanemployee canbe placed under suspension where a case against him m respect of a eriminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. In the instant case, a trial is pendiag against the petitioner. Even ifthe proceedings ofthe trial has been stayed, that will not have any efieet on the order of suspension passed against the petitionei'. Thus, the impugned order appears to bejust, proper and does not warrant any interference. 4. ~ Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ^^.A8BW