^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BIUUSPUR W.P.ISI No. 6275 of 3007 PETITIOnER Ramdhani Yadav, aged about 38 years, S/o Sobharajm, Occupation- Patwari Halka No. 21, R/o Village- Jamdara, Post Kuiuii, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G). Versus RESPONDENTS l. State. of Chhatdsgarh Through- The Secretaiy Revenue Departtuent, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. CoUcctor Sat^uja, Distt.- Saiyija (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Ainbikapur Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Naresh Kumar Maiuya, (Patwari) C/o Tahsildar Anibikapur, Distt- Sai^uja 5. Shri HarihaTan Sin.gh (R.I.) Druna TahsU Ambikapur, R/o Near Paiii Taiild, Kedarpur, Aiubikapur, Distt.- Sai^uja WRIT PETITIOtI UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB COKSTITUION OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for tbc petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwiyedi, Panel Lawyer appeara for the State on advauce copy. ORAL ORDER (24.10.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who was working on thc post of Patwari, has been suspendef) by order datfrt 19.9.2007 (Annexiire-P/ 1) in conteinplation of departinental enquuy, for wbich, a chai^e- sheet bas to toe issued to the petitioner. Leanied counsel for the petitioner argiies tliat the detailed aUegations are not mentioned in the iinpiigned order, therefore, the orrier is bad in law. He also argiies that. no opportunity of hearuig was tiwairied to tlie petitioner before passing the onier of suspension. So far as first argiinzent. is concemcd, it. has heen inentioned ia the inipugned order that tlie petitioner is Tieing suspended on account of negligencR in performing his official ^ W.P.(S)No. 6275 of 2007 duties. Mentioning this, the ordcr of siispension has been passed by the Suh-Divisional Officer with a directioti to the TahsUdar to prepare the cbarge-sheet against the petitioner. The contents of the orcier would show tTiat in fact, fhe suspension of the petitioner has been afTected in contexnplation of disciplinary proceedings proposed to be held against the petitioner. Rule 9 of the M,P. (C.G.) Civil Services (CIassification, Control & AppeaT) Rules, 1966 provides that the appoiating authority or any authorily to which it is siiborrimate or the disciplinaiy authority or any other authority empowei-ed ui that behalf by thc Govemor by general or spccial oirier, niay place a Govemiaent. servant iinder suspension, wbere a discipllnaiy pnoceeding against hiin is conteinplated or is pendmig, or on other coiuits wluch are inentionerl in the Rule. So far as the petitioner is concemed, he has heen suspended in conteinplation ofdisciplmaiy proceedirigs against. hun, therefore, the order of suspension cannot bc interfered wifh on this ground. As far as second arguniRnt is concemed that no opportunity was given to ttae petitioner before passing the. order, the 1aw does not require thaf before passing the order of siispensioa, an eiaployee is to be given an opportuuity of hearing. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interferR with the oiider of suspension passed by the competent authority. The petition has no inerits, the same is liable to be disiaissed ar»d it is accordingly djsmissRd. It is inade clear fhat this orrier passeri at this stage will not coine in the way in futiine, in case the proceedings of revocation are di-awn in favoiir of the petitioner or in case the petitioner is remstated for any other reasoTi. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti