W4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU@ W jCHHATTISGARI-Ii ’ / w.N P. Noféis‘za OF 2003 PETITIONER Shishupai Singh Chouhan 8/0 Late G. S. Chouhan, Aged about 58 years, Occupation—Service, posted As Accountant, Forest Forsst Training School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar [Chhattisgarh] VERSUS a$ w l. The Through State the 0f Chhattisgarh Secretaly, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyane Singh Bhawan, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] - 2. The Conservator of Forest, Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur [Chhattisgarh] The Conservator—imChief Administration, [NonJ Gazettedj, Chhattisgarh, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] Shri B. M. Garg, Director Forest Training School, Jagdaipur & the Enquiry Officer, Jagdalpur [C.G.} CONSTITUTION OF INDIA NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMU§ PROEIBITION AND DIRECTIONS OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR WRIT OR OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR , DERS: V 'The petitioner above—namedmost respectfully submits as under: PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the Cause Title above. '. - E " ' H!G}'! COURT OF MDICATURE CHHATT15GARH: BILASPUR Single Beach: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. Na. 3326 of 2003 Petitioner : Shishupal Singh Chouhem Vsrsus Kw“ ReSpondants : The State of Cllhattisgarh 6a others Shri Amit Velma, counsel for the petitioner. 8111i V.V.S. Moorthy, Daputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govormnent Advocato for the respondents. QRAL GwER {24th Jugy, 2906: 1. Learned counsel appeaying {01; the petitioner exlbmit's thai the petitioner, working as Accoumant i1; the ofiice of the LCM/» Forest Tramiag School, J%dalpur, was ‘ senfeei ale L/ Charge—sheet for certain allegations agaiest him. Durmg pendency of the egqniry, the petitiorxer wae placed under suspension by order datetl 12.7.2002 (Ailnexme PIS). Thereafter, one Shri B.M. Garg, Director, Forest Training Schoel, Jagdalpur was agpoiilted as Eequixjr Otiicer by crater dated 13.1.2003 (Annemre P} 13) in the depaxhnental enquiry instituted against him. The petitioner has filed thie petition praying that the O[ suspeneion order dated 12.7.2002 (Amtex’uxe P/S) and the order dated 13. 1.2003 (Amlexure P/ 13} appoioting Shn' BM. i/ Garg as Enquily Officer be quashed. \ / x Leanmd counsel aypearing for the raspondentslStae 3. t Submits that Shn' B.M. Gaxg, who was appointed as Enquiry cmcer by 0rd€r dated 13, 1.2003 {Anilexupe Pf 13), has bean :‘etjled ant mew anquily aEicey has beea appoilltad and as i such chalk-11$ to the order dated 13.1.2003 has become mfrucmous, to which Earned cauns€l appemiiig for the. \ petitioner does not dispute the fact. 4. Wifh regard to the suspension order dated 12.7.2602, it is suhmittea by leanled counael for the pefitioner thai more tha 8 meliths had passed before the charge~sheet was a supplied to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel relies on Sub Rule (Q-a) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules) 1966 (for short ‘the Rules, 1966’) in support of his contention that if the Charges along with other documents are not served within a periodof 90 days, the suspension period be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents] State submits that the charge’slleet was issued on 23.8.2002 Withi a period of 45 n days. The same was served on the petitioner by an‘ixing the same on the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner remained absent on account of some medical problem. Remaining absence on the part of delinquent employee cannot be the ground for delayed service of the c11arge~sheet. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was served on 23.8.2002. 7. Be that as, it may, the petitioner (has not been able to establish that the petitioner remained present throughout (has :919 eithar in his residence or at the place. af his Wink and tha charge-Shea was not sewed on him. This i3 the case of thé petitioner that he remaiaad Gut of his msidemm m1 account of medical imamam and as such me sawice of the. drag—sheet cannot be traated as, delayed afttr 9O days. Now, 111a enquiry has been initiat€c1. 8, The petitioner may §I€f€r a wpre3€31tatio11 ta the. authon'tics far qua3hing of his suspéfmsion order on legaliy pmmissible grounds, 1:1 tha facts and Circumstaglcag of $11!: case wh€n the sm‘vice. could not be affectod on account of absence of tho petitiongr, the suspension order cannot be quashed. 9. For the reasons stoma—above, this petition stands disyosed of. No oxder as to costs. \ \ & sw— ‘ Sau’sh K. Agniho w Judge 1 i Bablu