PET‘TWNWER é HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘Ni‘it Peiitiim .No. 53f) (if2335 B. Manjulata W/o 8111i B. Ramaiah, aged about 42 years, occupation Ladies Assistant Davelopment Extension Officer (Supervisor) at I.C.D.S. Konta, Rib Block Colony Kollia, Tahsil Konta, District Dantewada (CG). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Women and Chiid Development Department, DKS Bhawzm, Raipur (CG). The Joint Director, Women and Child Development Department, Raipur (CG). The Collector, District Dantewacla (South Bastar). Smt. Praihlla Dubey, W/o not know, occupation District Women and Child Deveiopment Officer, Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Dantewada (South Bastar). Snlt. Satyabhama. W/o Shri Ramaraju, occupation Project Officer, I.C.D.S. (In Charge), Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Dantewada (South Easter). (WRIT PETITION UNDER. ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, J’) Present : RESPONDENTS ORAL 0RDER. . With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. The petitioner, working as Projeet Officer in Women and Chief Development Department, Konta, District, Dantewada (CG), was placed under suspe. sion by order dated 06.01.05 (Amnexme P13) passed by the Collector, District Dantewada, and attached the petitioner to the office of the Project Oifioer, Women and Chief Welfare Depattment, Kusur, District Dantewada (CG) by order dated 19.01.05 (Annemre P14). The petitioner has impugied the validity of her suspension order dated 06.01.05 (Amtexure P/3) and order dated 19.01.05 (Amtexure P/4). This Court, on 05.04.95, after having considered submissions of the patties, and perusal of pleadings and document appended thereto, observed that the petitioner was entitled. for reinstatement as per proviso to sub-rule (5)(a) of‘ . \t‘ x A )‘3’ i Shri Vinay Pandey, AdvoCate for the petitioner. Shri Satis'n Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. lt03. _.l mh (Passed on this 13m of March, 2003) Rule 9 0f Chhattisgarh Civil Service3 (Classification, Conirol and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It was further observed that the petitioner would cooperate with the enquiry. Thus, the impugied suspsnsion order dated 06.01.05 was quashad in following terms: "Till today, learned Government Advocate is not in a position to list the material before this Court about supply of documents and issuanee of oharge sheet to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as per nroviso to sub- rule (5X21) of Rule 9 oftlie Rules, 1966" In the subsequent para, it was liiither observed as under: ".....As necessary documents and charge sheet have not been served on the petitioner even alter expiry of 45 days, and even 90 days are going to expire by tomorrow, therefore, I am ofthe opinion that it is a fit case in which, as far as suspension ofthe petitioner is concerned, the implementation and operation of . the suspension order should he stayed. Ordered accordingly.“ 5. It appears that, at present the petitioner is not under suspension and the enquiry against the petitioner is in progress. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner is no under suspension, this petition has become infinctuous, and the petitioner be direed to cooperate with the enqry. ct ui . I have not fond any reason to direct the petitioner eooperate with the enquiry as eained counsel pearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has alreadyveo‘operated in enquiry and wi continue to do the same. Thus, no order is necessary at this st. However, the respondents/ authorities are at. liberty ass a tiesh order, if i is found necessary, in the light of various ingredients required for suspension of an ployee. . in view of the oregoing, this petition stds dispsed of with the above f an o Stattad 1ib€rty. NO order asto costs, \f’f-f" " Sdl- f”"*’;§’ i atish K. Agnihotrig‘ Judge t u to l ap ll age to p t em . ‘ u \S l: .p