^- ^"sti"; 'sv-vf ^' ':.•••" ^^ ^^8y^~~ ^!^""- .-.'^' ?<e''".;..-""" ^y'" ., ' BEFORETHEHON'BLElHGWCQURTOFCHHATnSGARH ^ ATSHASPUR ' ,.. .' WRIT PETniON (Sl N0. 2-S2—/ 2011 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENrS K.R. pewangan S/o-late ShriJ.R. Dewangan, aged about 55 years, R/o, E-5, New Civil Une, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) State QfChhaftisgarh, -Through: - Secretary, Departnient of Revenue, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) -" ^"1. .The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) > 1. /:' 3. The Collector, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) WRITPETlTlONUNDERAS'nGLB2260FTHE CONSITUnON OP 1NDIA ^ "'-^~C E^^S^^" HIGMCOURT ©FChlHATnSGARmBU-ASPUR WRITPETITI0N(S)NOs2320F2011 PETmONER^^^^^^^^^^ K^^ Versus'.: , : . ' • •'-,••:••,•^; RESPONDENTS StateofChhattisgarh&Others (Writ Petition under Articl& 226 of the Constitutioh of India) - Single Ben(sh; Hori'ble ShrrSgtish K. Agnihotri, J. -- Present:- Ms Naushina Ali, Adyocatefor the petiti ShriA.V.Sridhar.PahelLawyei-fDrtheState. ORDBRfORAL) (Passed on this 1 day of Fehruary, 2011) :jl(^itl;leaFnedcc)unse[fqrthe,parties.. ;^ByTtR^Retit ,silie^p^titionerseeksrevOGationofthesuspension 6rderdatedi2@^i-2Q10(Annexure-P/3)passedbythe7^pondent 1' No.2,:.,'%.'.).l.;,-....,:^,.::'^ Cas&ofthepetition@ris^atwhHehe>was postea.as S^ OffiGer, Pitho^ra, the Gollector, Mahasamund, jhitiated^^^^ e^ against the petitioner on the basis df some complaints received against; hirri: Acconling to the petitioneF, in the said enquiry, clean chitwas given.to thepetitioner. |-fowever,the Gollector referredthe matter tQ the Secretary to ^he GQvernment of C^ Departnienf of Revenue, by memQ (lated 27-4-2010 (Annexure - P/1), for taking clisciplinary actitin against the petitipner on the ground that the petitioner was involvec) in the illegal sale of the Govemmentlands. . • - ; Against the said.memo,^ttie petjtioner.preferred a revisjon~petition before the Board of Revenue- The Board of Revenue by its order dated 14-5-2Q'I Q (Annexyre- P/2) stayed the effecf and operation of the memo dated 2'7'-4-2010. In spite of operation of the stay order in favour of the petitibner, tlle petitioner was placed under suspension byiprder dated 20-9-2010 (Annexyre—P/3)underthe itt"; •^c Gowri provisions 6f Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (ClassifiCatiOin, Cohtrot -and AppeaD^Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules,: 1,966"). ::• ,'' .' ^ y1': ; .. ;• ; '• . •: : : - 5. TheFeafter, more than 90 days have passed befOFe issue of chaFge shestand, assuch, underthe provisions OfRule 9 (5) of the Rules, 1966 the suspension order stands revoked. Q, Ms. Naushina, learned counsel appearing for fhe petitioner, relies on a decision of thjs Cqurt in Ashok Kumar Bhosley v. State of Chhattisgarh & offiere , *|»l'ierein this Court helcf that "howeypr ' serioUscMarge may be, if-the petitioner is notserved charge-sheet ' Switllin ttie limitation period prescribed under the provisions of Rule ^9 (2-a) of.tMe Rules, t966, the suspension order stands revQked ;,automatical[y;" - ' . , ' . • . 7. Shri Sridhar, leamed^Panel^Lawyerappearing fertheState, sybmits .thatsofaraslegal'provisionisconcerned.thereisnodisputeandif no charge^sheet has been issued within a period pf 45/90 days, as theGas6maybe,itstandsrevol<ed.Thus,the petitioneroughtnot tp hav& come to this Courtseeking revocation of thesuspension order, as itis the easeOf automatic revocation. 8. In yiew of foregoing and having consideredall the facts involved in the case,without expressing anyopinibn on the merits of thecase, the impugned suSpension order dated 20-9-2010 (Annexure—P/3) is quashed, on the ground fhat no charge-sheet has been issued within 90 days from the dateof the suspension order. 9. In the resulf, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.No orderastocosts. ;— 8d/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 12008(3)MPHTS8(C<3)