INTHE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition (Sl No. 1480 of2009 Petitioner SaatoshKumar Sahu, S/o Shri Nilkaatha Sahu, ^ed about 30 years, Occupation Sluksha Karmi Grade-III, Posted at Govt. Pnmary School, Jamgaon, Ja&pad Panchayat Berla, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CIihattisgarh, through it's Secretary, Department of Panchayat 8& Rural Developiaent, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipiw CoUector, Durg (C.G.) Jila Panchayat Durg fhrough its Chlef Executive Officer, Distt, Duq;(C.G.) Jaapad Paachayat Berla, throi^h its Chief Executive Officftr, Distt. Dm^; (C.G.) WRIT FTmON UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OFTHE GONSTJTUTION OP INDIA (SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agaibotri J.) Shri Viaay Paadey, Advocatefor tfae petitioners. Shri Yashwaat Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate Oeneral for the respondents No. 1 & 2/ State. ORDER (Passed on fhis 20tl> day ofMaroh, 2009) 1. Wifh the consent of leanied counsel appearaag for the partics, the Buatter is heard finaUy. Mt.~~~ "^" ~ ——-—-^,. ,^ ^.. 2. Leamed couasel appcaring for the.State faurly submite that the issue involved ia ttus case asto whether fhe petitioner, who is Sfaiksha Karmi, has been afforded an opportuaily of hearmg before termination Iroin his post, came into consideratioa before this Court in fhe matter of Ku. Punam aad others v. li: • f 1 -2^' State of Chhattisygprh & others1. Learued couusel furfher submits fhat siuce no noti.ee was given before temaination, the authorities shaU. take appropriate steps in terms of fhe judgment and order passed iu Ku. Punam (supra), before passing any order. Leamed coiuisel next subuuts that show cause uotice shalt be issued to fhe petitioner graxiting liim Imo weeks tune to file reply aad after having considercd the reply, the State authorities shaU pass appropriate order, ia accordauce with law. Tbe conceraed aufhorities witt tiy to complete the whole exercise withia a period ofthree weeks. In view of fhe foregoiug, accordiag to leamed counscl appearmg for the petitioner, nothiag smvives in this petition for adjudication. Haviag regard to the facts situation of fhe case and thc judgment passed in Ku. Punam (supra), the iaipugned tenmnation order dated 4.2.2009 (Aimexure P/I) is quashed. However, Uberty is reserved to the respondents/aufhoriti.es to take appropriate steps ia accordance wifh law, as above-stated by learued Deputy Advocate General within a period of tttree weeks, The petiti.an is aUowed to fbie above extent. No order asto costs. Qowri Sd/- , , , SatishK.AgniU»tn Judge sass 2Q08 (2) COLJ 366