.^ s-^ Petitioner J Responaente COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BSLASPUR WritPetitlon No. 6358 of 2005 Ku. Aanandita Bakhala, aged about 50 years, D/o. Shri Siman Bakhla, R/o. Kanya Shicha, Parisar Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). Versus 1) The State of Chhattisgarh through Secretar/, Department of Trlbal WeJfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ivlantraiaya, Raipur (CG). 2) Commlssioner, Tribai & Welfare Department, Ralpur, DJstrict Jashpur (CG). 3) Additionai Director, Tribai Weifare Department, Ralpur(CG). 4) The Coilector, District Amblkapur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satlsh K. Agnlhotri, u. present IVir. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Smita Ghai, Panei Lav/yerfor the State. ORAL ORDER . (Passed on th'as 5th ctay of March, 2009j , Wlth the consent of counsei'fQr both. the parties, the :matter is heard finally. 2) Learned counsei appearing for tne petitioner submlts that the petiti.oner ^¥BS placed under suspension by order dated 18a'10a-2005 (Annexure P/1) passed. by the respondent No.4 cn the ground that the petJtloner has commltted misconduct as provlded under the C.G. Civil Serv'ices (Ciasslfication,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, "the Rules, 1966). Leamed counsel furthei" s'ubmits that the petltloner was appointed by the .Commissioner, vvhereas the suspenslon order was passed by the respondent No.4/Coliector. Therefore, the order dated 1 S-l 0-2005 is bad in law as the respondent No<4 is without jurisdiction. - 2. <$ '^. 3) Be that as It may, an employee can be piaced under suspension only on two counts; firstty if there is a contempiation or pendency of enqulryr agalnst the employee and secondly r,an enquiry, investigatlon or trial of criminal offence has been jnitiated againsf:th^:employee under Rule 9 (1) (a) and (b) of the Rules,1966. Jfthe order ofsuspension is passed bytheState Government, the •'^ charge-sheet has to be issued within a periQd of 90 days under Rule 9 (2-b). of theRuies1966. 4) The suspension order was passed on 18-10-2005.in thls nnatter after suspension wlthin a-period of 45 days, charge-sheet has issued to the petltioner on 1-12-2005 (Annexure'P/2). The petitioner cnalienges the charge- ^heet also in thls petitlon without specifylng any substantlal ground, except that the respondent authority Issuing the charge-sheet is not competent. Since the charge-sheet was issued in the year 2005, the enquir^ 'must have be-.en cornpieted by this time. Therefore, at this stage, examining into the cornpetence of the officer, who has issued charge-sheet in 2005, has become academlc. it is open to the petitioner to raise the grievance that the authority Issulng the charge sheet is not competent at any stage either during in enquiry, if It is pending, or thereafter. 5) it is well settied principie of iaw that if the matter has become Enfructuous cn the facts of the case and question remains to be decided for academlc purpose, 11 js not necessary to examine the case, as obser^ed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. in 'several ma'Sters. ' (See Basheshar v, Commiss'ioner of Jncome Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Dhartipakar Madan Lsi Agrawal v. Rajtv Gandhf, Secretary, Minisiry of Informatjon & Boradcastlng, Govt. of indsa and others v. Crick&t Association of Bengai and 'AIR1959SC 149 2 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 - %- othBr^, Statec^ Manipur^nd oth^r^ v. Ch^nd^m Manjhar Smgr^, Amit D^s v. Siate of Biha^ and Prakash Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others6.) 6) This court cannot adjudicate a matter which has aiready becpme infructuous and no reiief can be granted to the petitioner. 7) Applying the above stated weii settled principies of lavv to the facts of the case cn hand, thss petltion is dlsmissed accordingly. Consequentiy, IVI..W.P.No.5046 of2005 also stands dismlssed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '1995(2)SCCJ161 4 1999 (7) SC.C 503 5 2001 (7) SCC. 657 6 2007 i'l) SCC 1