(15’ ‘Lw“ $§Nm ggmm IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR W. P.(S) NQW §%a% £2010 KPmmnd Kumar Mishm, S/o LaTg Shri Pefi’rioner ‘ Wg/ \Vj .. V) / R‘SMishm, Aged abw u1' 47 years, Inchar9e . I .. . v§ ..... .. $pér'rs Officer, SPor’rs and Yom‘h Welfare ‘ \V" ‘ .~. R n‘ Q. . (KaWan) Depar‘rmenf, Kor‘ba, Presemly working on ’rhe p93? of Physical Ins‘rrucmr '(PTI) a? Gcvt H£gher Sequndary Schooi (Triba‘ Welfare) Tivarfa, Block—Pa“ Dia‘h‘. Kama—(1:31;) yersus Respendenfs :i. / $M‘re a“? €hhmti§3gark Thrcugh w Thg Seer-awry! _ spar‘m and Voufh Weifara baw¢mant 3K3 Ehawam Qcxépur, Disff. Raipur3(€?.6.) T r‘r ribai a‘m DaLu‘Tmem‘, D.. Bhaw aipur Dis’r‘f. aiur—(C.G.) 2‘ hra $ecemy, T WHa p .KS an, R, Rp he oiEcr‘ Dis'f Ka—((1. 4. The Dimcfow, ar ad ‘m Weare, hhi‘i§g{xrh ttwar‘aen Rarv(c.él) I, Ca? ’y‘mf ipg ,." . The ‘ xacu Cn‘imr‘,‘ bim‘r‘écf ncha bé§ ripal ucharg’ 5pr‘rs Officer, fta arv»£‘.€v. [ ‘‘TIQN WRIT PETITION-UNDER §RTI€LE 22$ OFIHE CONSTITU QE$NDIA J I" G: ® 3/ T Cgfc, h‘ic ma6) Spfs’ n Yau if { 5 Chim Efive f Payat Kww§d M, 6. Ram K Sahhlne fa SP. Oxic Kba()‘ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU ‘ WRIT PETITION IS) NO.5308 OF 2010 Pramod Kumar Mishra Petitioner Versus ‘ State of Chhattisgarh & Others Respondents (WritvPetition under Article 226 ‘of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie ShriSatish KgAgnihotri, J. Shri Anil Singh‘ Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL) A (Passed on this 14‘“ day of January, 2011) yPresent :- 1. Solegrlevance of the petitioner is that while passing impugned order dated 29/07/2010 (Annexure P/4) for repatriation of the petitioner from Police Department to Tribal Welfare Department, certain adverse remarks have been made which may affect the r career prospects of the petitioner. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the repatriation, as the petitioner had already been posted'for more than 8‘years on the deputation post. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the adverse remarks have, been made without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put—forward his case which is against the well settled principles of law. 3. Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that so far as adverse remarks in the order are, concerned, the petitioner may make a representation before the concerned authority putting forward his case and on consideration V I I ' “of his response, appropriate or,der shall be passed‘in accordance with law. H R In View of foregoing, learned counse’l appearihg for the petitioner submits that nothing temains inthis petition for adjudication, however, the adVerse remarks already made, may not be ailowed to continue till fresh order is passed on consideration of his ‘ representation. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No 3/Coiiector Korba to consider the response of the petitioner to the observation made therein and the observation made therein may, not be taken on record. Appropriate order may be passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the V petitioner. e l i Sdl- SanshK Agnlhotrt ~ Judge l Arun