i H‘; » IN THEzHIG WRIT PETITION S ‘ NO :H f; aider ‘Ali Jaeri ged about ~59 year S/o 'Syed Mohd. Ali Jaferi /o R. T. 0., Jagdalur astcr, (C. G. ‘R 3; /o’E — 2, Dhara'mputfa- No. agaélp- retary, epartment of Trarisport;':Mantt‘ . 'K. S.,Bawan, Rajp he Trhnspprt CbmmiSéione hh‘attisga’rh, H v § ead Qualfter, Bus StandfCai’npuS, . A s, , O p, B ) ’ ‘ Jur D al* D h ur. T , C Raipur (C. G) @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5335 of 2010 PETITIONER Haider Ali Jaferi VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Pravin Tulsiyan co'unsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur Dy. AG for the Respondents. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O R D E R (12.10.2011) Chalienge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Transport and the order dated 27.3.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Secretary, Transport Department, State of Chhattisgarh. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner who was working as AG-III in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Jagdaipur was subjected to departmentai enquiry and as many as six charges were framed against him. After conducting a detaiied enquiry vide order dated 30.1 .2010 (Annexure P-1) the petitioner was compuisorily retired in View of Ruie 10 (VII) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P—10) on 17.3.2010. On 27.3.2010 an order (Annexure P—2) was passed by the Secretary, Transport Department, State of Chhattisgarh rejecting the appeal of the petitioner without deciding the same on merits. The ground taken by the Secretary while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner was that the Principal Secretafy to whom the appeal was preferred was also holding the post of commissioner, Transport and the order of punishment dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) was passed by him. @ 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Transport Commissioner is also holding the post of Secretary, Transport Department, he cannot decide the appeal and therefore the appeal should have been decided by some other authority enjoying the same status. in the return filed by the State Government it has been stated that the Secretary, Transport is an ex—officio Transport Commissioner and thus he has rightly passed the order of annexure P-2 holding that he has no power to decide the appeal. _Q__ 4. State counsel however submits that the petitioner may prefer an appeal before the Chief Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh which would be considered and decided by him in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner agrees to this proposition made by the State counsel and submits that six weeks’ time may be granted to him for filing the appeal. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal to the Chief Secretary within a period of six weeks challenging the order dated 30.1.2010 and in the eventuality of the same being done the Chief Secretary is expected to decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Order accordingly. 6. It is noted for the sake of clarification that no opinion has been put down on the merits and demerits of the case and the authority concerned shall have full freedom to decide the appeal so filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- a \ Pritinker Diwaker Judge