''f \4^> ^y-yA P^W/^ '.4-7 /. ^ v.-\.-- /" i )y/y ^ Brijesh Kumar Bajpai, S/o P.K. Bajpai, Aged 39 years, In-charge Block Education Officer (BEOj, Bhahupratappiir, R/o H- 12, Civil Liaes, Bhanu Pratappur, District- Kaiiker (C.G.) ^£ <? -'.' c*> ^fe* "^' /-:Ji- 4^ c^' sS>^ ^. 1} State of Chhattisgarh, Through ftie Secretary, School Education Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Secretax-y, Trible Welfaj-e Department, D.K.S. Bhawau,<rRaipur (C.G.) 3) The Collector, Kanker, District-Kanker (CQ) -S^'n'^l (v.-r.) "*\ ~ "'"' '•& •'s>..\ '%S^2&VA -^- /i ^ // XI-HC-22 sn^rqir R-ii+sn^T S»lt| (rf?tT 3^''<INICI<1, ®Tny'16,RlOl^y 4 *<1*<WI Shllti 311^1 "^ach —..co.:^?:JZ3?.y ra? ^ 2005~ Rres 311^1 g+dlW(rf?(T Seniol he petitioner la w< Bhanuppatappur. t-ie joined on qii<iFCT<(1-< *iitiinTffte^t<Ri«;i< ^3T)^IT3II^T Advocate with AAr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocsts f"r the oetitionsr. /Af. Akhi! Aqrawal, Psnsl llAwyer for' the 5+ate/r^spo.idsnts. Heard both The counsei. as In-chane Biock Education Officer, post on 9-12-2003. The case of the ?etitioner is that as per Anns^ure P-5 certain enquiries were conducted by the Spsciai Enquiry Comr|iittee and that Committse founc tho.t eertain irregularities were com(nitted m purchsses, emd Biock Resources &ev®ioom4-nt Offieers were found Di"im<1. faci® involved in the ssme. Accordin ^ly, s decision has been taken to suspend five cateqories of persons menfionea in Annexure P-5 and at Seria! No.s Biock Education Office", Bhanu^ratappu", has also besn ncinsd. Learned Senior Counsell for the Detitioner subfflits fnat even fhQyq^ fhs Ostitisner WQS not ivorkinQ whsn thsss purchosss ws5'^ mGds ^nd hs jQi?i!£C! on 'ttis post GfTffjr ths^s pur'chasgc were m^d^, ^i^r^foi^^, the oeTitioner was not involv4d in The said Du"chases, sven rhen The petitioner hss apprehension th|3t he will be placed und'er susperision 'in pursuance of order dated 29-3-p005. In fact, this is a petitio!)) fiied in antidpation of the cmprehension of suspension. When ths ca^s of the pstitionsr is tha+ hs wss not f<fti^M)__ XI-HC-22 SD^T^T f^lwan^T St"< ^(T ShH •r' ^ ^wm. 3^ '^nw<i, w^ww, ^v\wy. *iitiwi!*)*rrai fT<^^> ^.S^al.?^ ,. fa<)<A uls workin9 as Block Educction irreguiarities took ptace^ in th^ be suspended. This is merely was not wopkina on +he post of when the irreguiar purchases t| 1+ie suspension, ond for thdt 1 r'epresentation before the appr^ The fact that when the irreqi) was not work!n9 as Biock Educai In View of the above. eannot b®cntertained at -Hiis s^ t'onsequentiy, M-(W-)P-N^ disposed of. tii<<fn<fl-f iii<viTfffeifl'<.Riui< ^3rf^T3(I^T Officer, Bhonupratappur when ths pur'chases, then how the petitioner can 4in caiDrehension of ths oetitioner.. If he iock Education Officer, Shanupnitappur, kers. made, Then There is no likelihood of wse 1+se petitioner is entitied to mcte u topriate authority bringing to their notice |iar!Ties in purcnases were commiTTea he \}on Office", Bhanup"atappur. [fhe Detition is Dremotdre, therefore, it "t^.qe, and the asms is dismissed. ^1360/2005 and I.A-No-3351/2005 stsand Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ae