^ P^j^W. ^ CJ? ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S) N0.2.^<^f OF 201 1 PETITIONER: ^ ^ss^ w^ :^ ,.-<^>' ^•' .^ ^ ^" VERSUS RESPONDENT(S): 1 Akhilesh Upadhyay, Aged About- 41 Years, S/o- Shri Bramha Dutta Upadhyay, (Terminated .Shiksha Karmi Grade-11, -working at Government Pre-Middle School, Bharatpur) R/o- Village- Domahra, Post- Singraulli, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat- Koriya, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 4. Zila Panchayat, Koriya, Through Chief Executive Officer, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 T^T ^i^i^i^, ^Til^^Ko, foi<ni^^< TV^^^^^ ' "' "^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ 3^^T^^ ( ^f^<^T) ^I^T'^T'f^W 'TOT3n^T'^^W 'TOTTWRt^T3?T^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 12-05-2011 Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel forj Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advo| The petitioner, through this correctness and validity of order dat^d the services of the petitioner have Officer. Learned counsei for the petit| paipabiy illegal and unsustainable in not afforded to the petitioner. He furtlj against the petitioner, appropriate d^? provided in the reievant disciplinary rij Shiksha Karmi Grade-11. On the other hand, learned ^ aitemative efficadous remedy befor^ provided in M.P./C.G. Panchayat Serf read with Panchayat and Appeal Rul^, Though iearned counsei for| opportunity of hearing was not affo| issued to the petitioner. Whether thej jnfact granted opportunity of hearir) thrashed out by the appeliate authori^ other ground that before imposing 1999 were not followed, can also appellate authority. cr>i<<f<n^t 'W^ff ^ 'fe11st Tf^c$TC ^T3<fim3TT^T Shrivastava. J. |the petitioner. Isate Generat for the State. Ipetition, has cailed in question, the 10/03/2011 (Annexure P/1) bywhich, l^een terminated by the Chief Executive |oner submits that the impugned order is ^w as proper opportunity of hearing was ter submite that before imposing penalty i^partmental enquiry was to be held as |les applicable to the petitioner, who is a ^tate counsel submite that there exists the appropriate appeliate aythority as ^ice (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 e|s, 1995. the petitioner submite that proper tded, but it is seen that a notice was 1 petitjoner, in those circumstances, was )g, is a matter, which couid weil be ^ in a properiy constituted appeal. The ^enalty, the provisions of the Ruies of lj>e raised by the petitioner before the u° .^ ^:'^.\ ^•-^.^s^ ? ^^*.!./:' .^ \s^ !siteta^XI-HC-78 ^TI^T 'SFT f^'ljcb ^T^TI^T ^*11^ Deepti ^ *11Htrll ^hWcft 7"T '<ll<4l<vl^, ^Tl1<-l<l(o, [®ldl'(-llj,< ^,(),(^)^.zr€i/n-^200 311^?T TT?^' ( yif^^) ^ITW Tlf5H 3?T^T —-2-— Considering that the appellaf operation ofthe order of penalty, 1 the face of existence of alternative ^fficacious remedy. The petitioner would be a| provided under the rules, and aisc| available urider the law, which shal| Sn accordance with iaw. With the aforesaid observatic|is, the petition is flnally disposed off. <=t)Mf<n41i 'HW^if ^f 'felst <r^i^i< cfr^tRW3TI^T :e authority has ample power to stay the m not inclined to entertaln thispetition on liberty to file departmental appeal as apply for stay on such grounds as are be considered by the appeltate auttiority, Sd/- Manindra MohanShrivastava Judge