o. ^, yooL^: t IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHArriSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)NO. 2-(^ /201(^ PETITIONERS RESPONDENT ..: ^J^l.^ba--"y ^-tgg^*! (Su.p..dcd) l.,n.—"•—"•""" ftr-amin y-. Deendayal Bani, S/o Late Shri Vijaydhar Prasad Bani , aged about 58 years, Occupation - Field Officer, Rank-I Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Branch Lendhra, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS -^ President/Chairman Chhattisgasrh Gramin Bank, Head Office - Choubey Colony Recreation Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA. HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH:BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.217 OF 2011 fc.. ^ Arun PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Deendayal Bani Versus President/Chairman Chhattisgarh Gramin Bahk (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : 1-lon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriK.N. Nande, Advocate for the petitioner. Noneforthe respondent. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 25 dayofJanuary, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1 7/04/2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been placed under susperision by the Chairman of Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank in exercise of his power under Regulation 47 of the Chhattisgrh Gramin Bank Officers.and Employees Service Regulation, 2007 (for short "the Regulation, 2007"). 3. Under regulation of47ofthe Regulatioh, 2007 whereunder statutory provision provided for filingan appeal before the authority against any other order passed against theemployee. 4. In view of clear and categorical statutory provision as contained in Regulation 47of the Regulation 2007, there is no reason to interfere with this matter atthisstage in exercise of powerunderArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled principle of law that ifthe appellate forum is available, the Court should restrarn itself from interfering with the order, except in specialcircumstance. In the case on hand, no special circumstance exists to take diversion from the regular statutory procedure. 5. Having regard to the facts ofthe case, thewrit petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved tothe petitioner to take recourse to Regulation 47 of the Regulation, 2007, if so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge