ii'!.a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2123 of 2003 Petitioner: Anil Kumar Jam S/o K. C. Jain, aged about 44 years, Sub-Engiaeer in the ofi&ce of Rural Engineeruig Services Division Baikunfhpur, District- Koriya, R/o 45-8 Radhika Nagar "Vidyashri Public School Bhawan, Bhflai, District- Diirg (C.G,). Versus Respondents: 1. State of ChIiattisgaA Through the Secfetajy, Water Resources Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Engineer-m-Chief, Water Resources Department, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG). 3. The CoUector, Koriya, Baikunthpur District Koriya. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engiueering Services Dn., Baikuatfapur, District. Koriya (CG). Sinj^e BencA: Hon'ble Mr, Justice Satish K. Agniltotri. Shri Pritinker Diwakar, Seuior Advocate with Shri P. R. Pataukar, Advocate for fhe pefitioner. Shri Suiaesh Bajaj, Depuly Govt. Advocate for the Respondents. ORAL ORDER (l«tFebmaiy, 2006) The followtag order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Sub Engineer ui the ofGce of the Rural Engineering Services, Division Baikunthpur, District- Koria. By order dated 27.2.2003 (Aiuiexure P/3) the petitioner was put under suspension pending departinental enquiry on fhe allegation ofwrong assessinent oftbie works perfonned under his supervision. The petitioner has filed fhis petition im.pngning fhe ::.«:-~.K^*<'.:.ys~.'.«('iB!»»N*>>bJ,yrfJW ' !!>-• V'sVySS^a^f- suspension order dated 27.2.2003. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing ofthe order dated 25.4.2003 (Aimexure P/5) whereby Shri R. K. Jaui, Executive Engiaeer was appointed as Eaquiry OflBcer. 2. Shri Suinesh Bajaj, leamed Depuly Grovt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents subinits that since the enquiry officer has been chaaged aad tiie petitioner is beiug paid subsistencc aUowaace as adinissible aad payable under P, R. 53 of the M.P./C.G. Fundamental Rules i.e. 50% of the basic pay plus adinissible deamess aUowance, fhis petition chaBenging fhe suspension order inay be disposed of, aUowing the respondents to conclude the enquiry. 3. In the present case according to the respondents the petitioner was not cooperatmg with the Enquuy Officer. It appeais that the petitioner did not cooperate on accouat of appointinent of Shri R. K. Jain, Executive Englneer as Enquuy OfE.cer. This is also one of the grievance of the petitioner ia this petition. The respondents agreeiag with the grievance of fhe petitioner, have changed the enquiry ofBcer, as such it cannot be held that the petitioner did not cooperate wittt the enquiry o'fficer and the suspension period extended beyond fhree inonfhs on account of non-cooperation of the petitioner. 4, For the reasons stated above, fhis Court is ofthe opmion fhat the petitioner is entitled to further 25% of the subsistence attowaace, ia addition to the subsistence aUowance he is already getting, during the suspension period. 5. The second prayer of the petitioner regarding order dated 25.4.2003, appointmg Shri R. K. Jain, as enquiiy ofBcer has Ffl' becoine iitfructuous, in view of the fact that new enquixy oSGcer has been appointed. 6. In view of the above stated reasons, the petition is disposed of. However, fhe respondeuts are directed to coiuplete the enquiiy within a period oftwo nionfhs from. the date ofreceipt/production of a copy of tttis order ia accordauce with law. No order as to costs. CertiGed copy, as per Rules. Sd/. atish K. Thakur E'l^ grf>