.^'- >^ ^' \ 6 \c/' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. ^^/ /2003 / PETITIONER .^ ^•^:. '^ ^^ ...^ ^ RESPONDENTS Deepak Verma, S/o, Late C.L. Verma, aged about 40 years, Matsya Inspector, (Suspended) Paras Sadan, Durga Chowk Rajnandgaon VERSUS : 1 The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Departnient ofMatsya Krishak Vikas Abhikaran D.K.S. Building Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Matsya KrishakVikas Abhikaran Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ^26/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4141 of 2003 Petitioner DeepakVenna Versus Respondents The State of Chhatdsgarh & aaother WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OPTHE .CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble ShnSatish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shn Anaad Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sniita Ghai, Paael Lawyer for flie respondent No. 1. Shri M. K, Sinlia, Advocate for fhe respondent No.2. O R D ER (Orall (Passed on this 7th day ofOctober, 2009) Heard. The petitioner has filed fhis petition challenging fhe show cause notice dated 29.6.2001 (Annexurc P/l). The petitioner seeks a relief to aUow him all fhe benefits durmg suspension. The petitioner was posted as Fishery Inspector ia Krishak Vikas Abhikaraa, Kawardha. In connection with fhe offence registered at Crime No. 139/2000 by fh.e PoUce Station Rajnaadgaon, under Sections 498 -A, 201, 34, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was taken into custody. Accordmgly, by order dated 7.7.2000 the petitioner was placed under suspension. After a faU fledged tarial, by judgment dated 25.5.2001, passed by fhe Sessions Judge, Rajnaadgaon ia Sessions Trial No. 1/2001, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer two years rigorous iBiprisoninent. After conviction of the petitioner, by fhe irapugned notice dated 29.6.2001 (Annexure P/ 1) fhe petitioner was asked to submit his reply as to why his services should not be termiaated in. accordaiice wifh fhe provisions of Riile 19 of fhe Madhya Pradesh/Chhatdsgarh CivU Services (Classij&cation, Conti:ol and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Learaed counsel appearmg for fhe respondent No,2 subnxits fhat subsequently the petitioner has been termiaated from service. Wifh. regard to tiie aUowaace durmg the period of suspension, ^ 7. 8. 9. Thabir •-^ the petitioner has failed to file reply to the notice dated 29.6.2001, as such no order could be passed on fhat. Learued coiinsel appearing for fhe petitioner subniits fh.at after conviction in fhe Sessions Trial, the petitioner has filed a Crimmal Appeal No. 531/2001, whereia by order dated 26.6.2001 the execution of sentence has been suspended. The appeal is stiU pending before fhis Court. On perusal of the papers it appears ttiat mstead of filmg reply to fhe notice dated 29.6.2001 (Annexure P/l), fhe petitioner, ttirough his advocate, gave a registered notice dated 15.10.2001 (Annexure P/2) to fhe respoudent No.2 under Section 80(1) to the efiect that if fhe petitioner is not paid his dues, he inay be constramed to move the Court. It is clear from fhe order dated 26.6.2001 passed by this Court m Crimmal Appeal No. 531/2001 that the M(Cr.)P No. 1149/2001, seeking suspension offhe effect offhe conviction, was rejected. At fhis stage, leanied counsel appearing for fhe respondeut No.2 submits fhat ifa reply is filed by fhe petitioner, appropriate order shaU be passed, ia accordaace wifh law. In view offhe above, at fhis stage fhis petition is premature. The petitioner is not entiUed to aay reUef. However, m view of the categorical subndssion inade by learaed cduusel appearmg for fhe respondent No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to file response to the notice dated 29.6.2001 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, appropriate order niay be passed by the respondent No.2, ia accordan.ee wifh law, ia its perspective. In view of fhe foregoing, fhe petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotn Judge