Cwm§ IN THE E‘EGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ELASPUR (CG) mam Pmrimow Nofréog 03' 2004 Z, EETV‘WN Hira Lal mmv ,’aged about 59 yeaxs, s/o shri Ramratan Dhruvfi suSpended mad MaSter." Primary School sidesar. 'B‘Lodc Development Kanker; District Kanker ,"‘ Headquartered V during suspension at Project Administrator, Narayan§ur, resident o£ Village and Post Govinapur District Ianker (a3). ?BTI TIONER A N‘D 1i The State of amattisgarh, through the secretary, /, Daparment of Adim Jati Kalyan vibhag, D.K.s. Building?‘ Raipur (CG). /”2.‘* The Collector, mnker,‘ District Kanker (CG). é .swiéaw $9 3w». TWW§° The mmmissioner ‘3 rlbal Develom‘ent; Chhattisgarh, IB ur (03) RESPONDENw" {.u WRT‘T‘ WTI’UDN UNDER A Ems 226/227 OI‘ T-E CONSTITU’EON OE IENDIA ‘ . . w‘am. 4eoX/M4 WWW W200 WW W (W?) $WW W‘TW wwwm i f Wgwmfw‘m" ‘ 10.02.2005 Shri Rakesh Antony, counsel "hr the petitioner. L,» I d L Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Panel L1wyer for the State. Application (I,A.No.9204/2004) for urgent hearing is allowed. ‘ On the very outset, learned c‘ounsel for the petitioner informs that though it has been mentioned ir para 10 of the petition that the matter for the similar relief is peniing before the S.A.T., but the matter is not pending before the S.A.T and this Court can entertain this petition. i Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner p :_ was working as Head Master in Primary School Dheikaboard, District Kanker. ’He further submits that the petitioner was suspended Vide order dated 6. 1.98 (Annexure-P’S). The allegations against the petitioner are that he forged the transf er order and amended order and i committed fraud while working on the said post. On account of the said charges a charge~sheet was issued to the petitioner on 9.2.98 (Annefure-P/7). Leanred counsel for the petiti i er submits that the documents were not forged by the petitioner, th [order of suspension as well as issuance of charge—sheet (Annemre-P’5 and P/7) are bad in law and / Grl DR! FS/350~l 2/2000~—5(i,000. ‘ / if a / / / / [a1 XI-HC—78 WfW W 200 WIW‘W 3211mm mmm WW wm $a‘1‘wm _..z— the same should be quashed. \ petition on the basis of which com? fact, the petitioner has been falsel} unnecessarily being dragged in the Jfalse implication of the petitioner are in fact the matter of defence f the petitioner: which cannot be examined at this stage when the d partmental enquiry is still pending and the petitioner has entered in defence by filing a reply to the article ofthe charges issued to him Learned counsel for the p titioner counld not point out any infumity in relation to jurisdiction ofthe authority or voilation of any rule under which enquiiy is to b a conducted. Suitice is to say that presently points raised are premat re and are not to be considered at this stage. The petitioner’s prayer or grant of relieffor quashrnent of proceeding of enquiry could not b entertained on the above grounds offalse implication. So far as order of suspe ion is concerned’ admittedly, the same is appellable under Rule 23 of the M.P. (C.G.) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appe ) Rules 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner has notpointed out as to/whether any appeal has been filed by the petitioner or not. 0rd r of suspension shows the reasons for which the suspension has b n edected and atter issuance of //r // pp WW Wm m w W Na arm/2 straw-M (We) The contentions regarding {arious grounds are raised in the 1sel for the petitioner argues that in r implicated in the matter and he is departmental enquiry since 1998. 6% WWWWpNa4g&gz%§00 W W<W> £ Vi: 2x