^7 * IN THp'HIGH COU^T^OF JUDICATURE:CHHATTISG^RH:BILASPUR '^^ c ?'r\' ^ >r PETITIONER Wrlt Petition No, <>^ /2QQ2 The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary^ Mater Resources Department^ Mantralaya DoKoSoBhawan^ Raipur (Chhattisgarh)o Versus •s^^- \ RESP01-OENTS ?y »^^ t^^^' A'^f-"" ..'/€?'' ^^f <T^"". ^' 1<» PoP^ Gupta^ aged about 50 years^, S/o Late Shrl Xnand Du.tt ^ Eseecutive EngineerCSuspended) Tandula Water Resources W^feas Stessss Division Durg^ Civll Lines s Durg (Chhattlsgarh) 2^ The Reglstrar^ M^P^dmlnistrative Tribunal^ Bench at Raipur (Chhattisgarh)o r^r)o/—| WRIT PETITION UNDER &RTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIGN /fj ^^ OF INDIA^ XI-HC-22 ^[T^r'SFT ^w SD^W ^fT^T sn^w ?^ t<ii<ii^i<<, ^1ait<4i<o, (^w^iy 3^?r ^s^s t0^;^0« ^LM./OZ- MINCII ^^-•••-••-•--•••-•••-••••••••••••^p^ 200 f^R^T* ^T^l ^<ffW ^rfFI DR.'HON^LR SHRT FAKHRTJD^TN & HONBLE SHRI L.C.BHAD<t)O.JJ thfct 7-4-2004 Shri Sandeep Dubej State/petitioner. Heard. Shri Dubey submits against the order dated 19- Adininistrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in its or<| passing the order of postcd at Durg and during suspen^ion headquarter has t)een fixejd Ijas leatned order circumstances the Tribunal the headquarters of respondejnt he was posted at the time of We have heard tKe and also gone through the the Tribunal. The respondentj he was suspended. During s^ fixed at Jagdalpur at a distanl fhe earlier orders passed by ^petitioner falled to point out| <n)M(<!1<4l"l WI^f ^ I^A '?N^R ^3?rf;<P?3II^T Panel Lawyer for the this pctition has becn filed 10-2001 passed by the State ler found that at the time of ^on, the respondent No. 1 WSLS [thc pcriod of suspcnsion, his at Jagdalpur. Under the arrived at a conclusion fhat No. 1 wiU be at Durg whcre yspenslon. counsel for the petitioner dated 19-10-2001 passed by No. 1 was posted at Durg wliUe spension his headquarters was place. The Tribunal considered uious Benches. Coiinsel for the the circumstances warranting 4- [^^w ^^^— -T XI-HC-22 %^r^F[ l^iw^n^ $h*iicb ^Ra ^b 1^^-^ f- ^ '3^';:^(zn^TEF, ^Ttl^^r^ fa<rtwy \^ *(IN<lflt «^N(OR an^r ^^R_ ^^^o.Sm/^^ •^( 200 "fe^r' EH^[ <ffl^?[^<UW^f^ .2.— Trtis change of headqiiarters. inore thoii 3 years back an4 on 19-10-2001, Having heard the thoughtful consideration tc^ the case and material on tn Surya Devi Rai -v- Ram leamled counsel and having given our thc facts and circiiinstaiiccs of and in view of the Judgment qhndra Rai and another (JT 2003 dU rect^rd (6) SC 465), in the opinion of tn the iuipugned order pass^ 2001 warranting interferen^e extra ordinary jurisdiction | Constitution of India. / Tlie pe^titioii is accordi^igly dismisscd. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge <t»l<({<n41n'WI^f ^ fcsit <Rt^t< ^^R3?R^r siispension has taken place the Tribunal passed the orders f this Court, there is no infirmity s^d by the Tribunal dated 19-10- ^e by this Court in exercise of under Article 226/227 of the Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^^