@ !f*ii ffi leB ^( L£ Q;^J'<a! 1^3 £=•-=° ^- ^5 L' L IN TKE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR IC.G.) WRIT PETITION NQ^_36 '1-6 /2005 PETITIONER \^^> ''~^ciy' ^ .-Y^^y^ ^^f.^ <'o y ^ :.^F ^c.^' .<**' s<&°'' K.M. Shrivastava, S/o. Late Shri Ram Das Shrivastava, Aged about 53 years, Presently posted as In- charge Assistant Minin^ Officer, O/o. District Collectorate Office, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS .^6's-'' o's?RESPONDENTS *'?fl ^r??^\. r> '•V v\ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector (Mining), District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDI;R ARTTCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORJSSUANCE OF WMT IN THE NATURB OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER S.ORDER OR ORDERS. ^ \ ^*> ?, ,--'^ ^ OR DIRECTIONS. XI-HC-22 d-ni •<ii<ii<i<i, wxnwis, ft<"uyy 3ll^l'4?|ch i iTOwgOTreT """"""""•""g^ 200$' ,^^......... sn^frqir R-fi+sii^r siii'oylea 3(1^1 ^wiwnfeT 10.08.200S Shri Manindra Shrivast^va, Sr. Advocate with Shri Afroj Khan, couasel for the petitionci Heard on adniission. The petitioner, who ip pn Officer (lu-charge) at Dhariitaji, has filed this writ petitiou for quashiag offhe commurucatio^i dated 13.07.2005 (Annexure-P/2) written by the Inspector Gener^l of PoUce, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur to the Pricipal Secretary of Mineral Resoiirces, Raipur. uuder Sections 7, 13(l)(d) & 1 has been filed in fhe Coiirt of Case No. 08/2005, but the conceraed secretaiy for putd4 fherefore, the iiapugaed aiemo| bc quashed. He further ^ under suspension and appret^ filed fhis writ petition. I have perused fhe conte^ t)i<ifci41-< ii*«nVft'teiA<Rifc;i<. ^3Tf^q'3n^r sently working as Assistaat Miaing State of Chliattisgarh, Department :amed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat no doubt a cnn^mal case vide crinie No. 58/2003 i(2) of fhe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered again^t thc petitioner and a chaige-sheet ipecial Judge, Bilaspur vide Special nspector General of PoUce (Aati- Corruption Bureau) has no aupiority to issue such a memo to the the petitioner uadcr suspcnsion, (Commumcation dated 13.07.2005) .ubinits that according to fhis letter/ineiao, the aufhorities ^nay straight way put the petitioner nding all these, fhe petitioner has .ts ofthe impugaed incnio. It appears that a chai^-sheet dated 06.07.2005 has been fikd a^iinst fhe petitioner un^ cr fhc aforeincntioned sectioiisofthe A XI-HC-22 sn^rqir R-ii+aii^r ^iiiqiuRa -^ - ^sf^WvPf, a'dlwiG, facuyy —U:f;^.0.'..^.<±6. HWvtl th*ll«h••••••••••••••••••••• g^ Rl<''d""""""""""" 3ll^<l S«ll<l«tRa -2- Contuptii Prevention of Corruptioa Act, before the concemed Court. charge-sheet, fhe Anti-< coiniaurucation for suspendin^ ftie chai^e-sheet is filed againsjt of law, fhen under fhe rule,' thf undersuspension. Though th^ efc. have not been inentioned this comm.unication only, the ^ I have heard learued have also perused the records In the opuuon of this Cj interfere in such niatter coilnsel cominuiucation.if is classifie< request of fhe prosecutioh to not biuds liim to put fhe peti^k): departineutal action, fhe Stat) law. To put a person under fhe departmental authority. If wisdom. thiaks it proper fhat the rules permit such actic|n, coiiununication in this regard| treated as aa information to I happens fhat crmunal casesj ?bwffi41-f HifdTftTs'^fl <Ritci< ^ari^iTsn^T 1988 vide,special case No. 08/2005 In connection with the aforesaid fuption Bureau has sent this the petitioner stating therein fhat if any govenuaent servant in a Court ; govenuaent servant should be put mciuo indicates like this, but rules >r quoted in this mcm.0. It is ^ainst etitioner has conie to this Court for the petitioncr at length aad rffhe writ petition. tourt, this Court is not required to at fhte stage. The iiapugned 1 under fhe legal sense^ is just a lie concemed aufhority which does ioner under suspension. For takmg ; M fce to act in accordauce wifh ^uspcnsion or not,is the wisdoia of |he departmental authority ia aU his ^ person shouJd be suspended aad there is no necessity of any [ This comiaunicatfon may also bc the State because it most oftenly are registered against fhe State 1\ XI-HC-22 HtlWI 3^ -<f\wwf, OTdwis, Islcuyy OT^aso ^p..^:.^^... g^ 200 b ^^5. < an^fr^r R-lifiSI^T ifer Sb^lcb^t s,'a^ Sf^f ewiia< gfer -^-i ?BI<ltl-l<fl-lt|IHdT^'fe><rl <Rl+<il< ^ari^iTgn^r einployees and fhe charge-she^ts are filed but this important fact is not brozight to the notice o|F fhe concemed h^her authorily of the departinent In the opuuon ofthis Co^ut, fhis is uot a sta^e for iaterfering ia such matter. The petitipn [is premature. The iiapugned lettcr does not give rise to a cause bflaction in favouu- ofthe petitioner for in fhis petition and fhe petition te issTiaace of a writ of certiQFar dismissed at fhis stays withoul It is inade clear that notice to ofher side. Ehte Court has not expressed any opuuon on fhe merits of the <}ase pertaining to the suspensiou of fhe petitkiner wbich shaU W provisions. strictly govemed by fhe statutoiy Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge