•V ts^ i3K Ksai.i- ot.rii IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WMT PETITION N0. / 2005 ^*^?^ss SBI? PETITIONER ^y ^r/ ^y' ^^^ / ^^ :Vishamber Lal Gajendra 'S/o Hira Singh Aged about 55 years Occupation- Retired Revenue Inspector, Village- Mokha, P.S- Gurur Dist- Durg (C.G) Versus ^ -/3, StateofC.G Through Revenue Department, D.K.SBhawan Raipur (C.G) Collector Rajnandgoan (C.G) Sub-Divisional Officer Rajnandgoan (C.G) •WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. ^ HE6H COURT OF WHATTISGAfW AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 6161 of 2005 Petitioner Bishamber Lal &ijendr-a Versus Respondents State ofChhatt-isgarh & others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri H.5. Ahluwalia, Advocate forthe petitioner. 5hri V.V.5. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate ©eneralwi-th 5mt. Anju Ahuja, Oeputy Advocate Senerat for the State/respondents. ORDER ith (Pas%d on 14T" day of December, 2006) The following order of the Court wofflpassed bySatish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner, while working as Patwari in +he Revenue Depart'ment at Rajnondgaon, a criminal case was re9istered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him. The petitioner, by order dated 1.1.1993, wos placed under suspension under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Chssification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1966'). TTie criminal case resulted into acquittal by the judgment cnd order dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Special Judge, Rajnondgaon in Special Case No. 7/92. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in the service by order dated 10.11.2003 (Annexure P/l) ond the suspension was rewked. te^i 2. The State Sovemment preferred an appeal before this Court against the order dated 18.9.1987 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 7/92. 3. It is admined position that ttie petitioner was acquitt-ed in the criminal trial. This Court, while considering -Hie identical point of law invotved in W.P. No. 4033 of 2004 (Santosh Kumar Asati Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by order dated 20.4.2005, held that the suspension order cannot continue unless the appeal is allowed and the petitioner is convicted. The respondents/authorities were directed to consider the reinstatenient of the petitioner as also -ttie payment offull back wages and other consequential benefits after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. 4. The same issue again came in W.P. No. 2175 of 2004 (bhaneshvwr Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another). This Court, by order dated 4.12.2006, held as under:- "The puipose of suspens'mn in life present ca^. i.e.. smoo-lfi diqjosal of invesfigatwn, inquiry or irial of a criminal offence, is alrecdy over and 1fie pefitioner has been acquitt'ed in the criminal trial. Jhus. fhe petitioner cannot be phced urK/er suqiwieion contimiously even under Rule 9 of ihe Ruks of 1966" 5. In view of the orders dated 20.4.2005 and 4.12.2006 passed by this Court- in W.P. No. 4033 of (Santosh Kumar Asati Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and in W.P. No. 2175 of 2004 (Dhaneshwar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another), this petition is allowed Bablu and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement on -the post after revocation of suspension as also the payment of full back wages imd other consequentia! benefi-t-s after adjusting the amount of subsistence altowance already paid to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.. judge