BEFORE : HON'BLS HIGH COU5T OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUS. lfeit petitlOB So i .-' 2000 Petltioner iRespondents /..• s.0' .,'<^\h.- ''".^''v'' <?.- \/'~ / ^ ?>.'"' 6'y S.S. SH.WIA S/0 SHR.I SHAKKAqLA SHARNA aged obout 45 years, AidltIonaX Superintandins &igineer<i Ghhatti sgarh state Ei.ectrlclty Board (KPES) Kanker Distt* Kanker (Ghhattisgarh). VERSUS s; 1. Ghhattlsgarh State Blectrialty Soarc?, Through - Chairman ..••/^C'nhattj.sgarh State Sleatricity Boapa^ <-'-rA«"'. /^(T^ y^ai pur (Shhattisgarbl ^xy^ <>y'*'•*'/?"2. JOINT SB3RET Y ( p) - V ••".-^'' /'/' ^'•^•' ttedhya E'radesh 13. ectt-ici ty Board Shakti-Bbawan, Rampur, J3BALPUR (M.P.) ! PETITI'ON Ui'TDSR ARTI3LSS 226/227 OF THECONSTITU"TOM_ 1 OF IHDIA. ^K:.^>^^S1 '^^'z !IKIiBIKIIKille'RSSiKa| B%SS®^''p& ' '3^-<(i<i,ii:'t<i;a»Ttlia?is;TI:wti*(y ICSf'SXS'''*'" 3' W.P.No. 45A ef ^2e©0 ^ST";'"^ 3W??r'?.; i^'lf^ -3TF??T ^fWf gftn' 21.3.2001 <*l--l!d<il-< fTO?ff ^ fs^t WTi?R ^r sff^fi zws 1181BWS i*ISU., Peti-tioner ly Shri lif.G.Iaaaskar, Advocate. Respondenlsby Sbri ^.S.Jayaswal, Advocate. Heard. Thie writ petj.tionerjwas placed under suspension yide order dt. 6.10.2000.| Madhya Pradesh Civil Servi.ces(Classificatlon,c4Btrol and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides thgt the or^.er of syspension shall stand revoksd on esipiry ol thfi period o£ 90 froa the date of the ordeif o£ suspension in case copy o£ the charges and ot4er documents referred to in sub-rule(2-a) are no-t; issued to sueh Govt. Sei'vant. Ryle 9(2-a) stdtes: "Where aGovernaent seijvant is placed under suspension under clau4e(a) of sub-rule(1), order of suspension sltall contain the reasons .fop aaking such order |and t»here it proposed to hold an enquiry agsjinst such GoveraaeHt servant under rule 14,1 a copy of the articles of charges.the stataB^Bt of imputations o£ misconduct er mis-beheiviouT and a list of documents and witaess^s by whcih each ar'ticle o£ charge is proposed j'to be sustained shall be issued or cauised toj be Issued by thA disciplinary authority, to such Government servant as required b^ sub-rule(4) o£ rule 14» within a period o^ 45 days from the date o.f order of susp^nsien. [Tir&Sfi5it ••^^^s -p-r^^ •-+- 3^^'f ^^^ ('^I^^&C ) T^ a:n^t?:CT.s?Tfifci' ^rafcT^ 'w^w ^' 1^^t 'n^i^R A- 3if;;riT3n?sT "Provided that wher4 the disciplinary authority is the StateGoverni^ent, the copy o£ charges and otbers doeuaents a^ntionedabove shall be issued or eaused to be isfeued to sucb Goverrment servant within, a perl.odof^Odays from the date e£ order e£ suspeasioii." '^ V.G.Iaaaskar, Ifeariied eounsel for the petitioner subaj.'ts tbat t(ioughjk the petitioner placed under suspension w|,e«f»6th ttctober,2000, the order of syspension/charg^-sheet was served upon the writ petitioner only on 6|.2., ^ tbe pleadtngs and also ajfter hearing the counsel £w ^" both the sides that tbe {arder of suspensioa/aed«s- •e^', charge-slieet was alrepdy signed OQ 20.12.2000. However, adaittedly and a.t)parently it was served on 6.2.2001 apon th'e writ pe^itioaer. tn the process Mr. Tanastor sutanits tha|t ttae ebarge-sfaeet came to be served long alter the l»erio<l o£ 90 days of the order of suspension and iJEi.fact jtfa after 112 days. As regards the delay in ^ex^ing tbe eharge-sfaeet ( to the petitipner Mr Jayd o£ thi£ sudden develGpaerj't of the coaing into force ot the new State of Chhalj-tisgarh a transitional delay "C-vVui-ey-^ swal submits that in veiw ;:XPRJ—FS/3i I—1/2001-50.000. •te^k in the way of serviije of the charge-sheet -' ^ - ! '•' within 90 days. Mr. Taaa4kar submits tfaat tbere is no room for sucfa expl&iia'tjion tHerefore such aatter i be dealt with in aecorda^ce with tbe Riiles prescribed —aA-teto--yegapd-aBdde^-i-riitely the-^s?®s®ntease is- 4- ^;lfa??;^l^%B?'^^mSBi%: '&^^:'^fS^S^^SSi^ S^: ®l^g%3''sigSa>»iSMaaKiaiiwssS£^^^ :M "WS^SSS':s!WSSW^SSSSWV°9a^WnS9S'S- 3^7:li^-t;-L.i-i^rSflif:..- SWST'in; fvW 3^?I ??=)ffi 'RT^ i^^?:fe^j^^t.;<- "~f''""Sl^^.^^^^:,^ Iss 'mc [,E.^3A; ttTO5Tr%ffl%' •ajE^2QeO^^ "^ +Nf<-i<fts( tITWff"? fs^ttfSRZR ^3lf:TtT3D^r (Coatd. 21.5.2001) bit by Rule 9 3|N|a) of ^ie said Rules. ! It appears from the 'vjeryoperation o£ tfae provisioa particulartajOf Rule 9(5}(e|^ of the said Rules the '-< 1 1^^-A order of suspension sbould Mr. Tamaskar submits thal \QfJiV^ have<^'evolted*hnw>VBK- no order o£ revokatlon has been issued by the co^petent aptbority. It is further sulaait'tjed that it is opea to the competent authority t4 take furtber action in Ct^x.' the matter. The <yttcles oflthe matter is tbat competent authority sboul^ not iiave allowed 90 days to expire before servi%e the petitioner. ot the charge-sbeet upon In the result this p^tition is allowed.The iapugned order of suspens:(.on issued on 6.10.2000 by the Joint Secretary, M.P.Electricity Board is quashed. | Certified copy, toda^.^i •^ Sd/- Chief Justice