wig“: ydi'w ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION NO. 33 / 2004 PETITIQNER: éi" W wg K az; Sing}; Baghel, Sk} Late Shri Lakhmu Ram Baghel , \{\ D ........... Caste Bhatra (Satnami), aged about 36 years, Occupation Head Constable in Police Department , Rlo Village Post Khorkhosa, Tehsél Jagdalpur, Q q‘ $0 ggw‘ ¢ ‘f’@ f 1‘ / ‘ District Bastar ',€hhattis'garh. VERSUS /.. l. ‘StateefChhattisgarh ' Tlnough‘the Secretary, Department of Home, D‘K.S. Building, Mantralaya RaipuqrCL‘x.) ' 2rThe BirectorGerreral of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur District. Raiptir (Cd) 3. hispectorGeoeral of Police ‘ 'Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, District —~ Bastar (C‘G.) 4 Himarrshu Gupta / Supemrtendent of Police Jagdalpur Distrlct- Bastar (CG) 5 Station Henge Ofiicer / Police Statm Perpa fagdaipur i31stnct—Bastar ({3.G;) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE . £DNST1TIJTJQN OF INDIAFMUENCEDF WRIT IN TIIENATURE 9F MANDAMUSPPRQHIETIGNa fERTiaRARI, AND AweTHER W113: 13IRECTIONS OR (Wk. y€ w’\ ...... / / // ORDERS ‘ WW, @8 W g, W o “VN3H‘79} WW ~ai§¥rm (W13) Wmm W 200g mwm ammm E‘qwm‘gwm $ai'mwésr 09.02.2G05 Shri Alok Dewangan, learnav Shri Sandeep Dubey, Par respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 on advance copy. Heard on admission, leamed counsel for the petiti‘ of cenain allegations of irregu petitioner and 3 other employees na Muneshwar Singh, Consiable No. Constable No.448 Prashant Bish enquiry was initiated Vide Notice Charges dated 03.8.2004. A copy‘ Annexure P-4. He further subr 07.6.2004 (Annexure P-l) the peii Thana Parpa to Thana Dhanora. vide order dated 21.6.2004, a copy Annexure P-2. He also submits ‘ 21.6.2004 though the petitioner w three persons who were involved in line attached and no suspension or The contention of learned counsel f r the petitioner is that when a common charge sheet was issue against all the 4 persons i counsel for the petitioner. .el Lawyer for the State/ )ner submits that on account ' arities committed by the mely Head Constable No.48 ll4 Sudarshan Dubey and was, ,a joint departmental /Memo of Specification of )fthe same has been filed as rits that 'Vide order dated tioner was transferred from Later on he was suspended of which has been filed as :hat on the same date, i.e., 1s suspended, but the other this matter have only been er was issued against them. GL FRI FS/350— 1 2/2000~50,000. WWW wmWai; then it was incumbem upon the authority either to suspend all ofthem or to allow them all in sei' and pass an order for line attachment etci, as it was passed in c se ofother 3 persons. Learned counsel for the petit oner submits that the action on the part of respondents suspend g the petitioner is malatide as the respondents are not giving eq Ial treatment to the persons involved in the said case against w om a joint charge sheet has been issued and an enquiry is pendi A perusal of the petition sh ws that the petitioner has sought various other reliefs like 11 crement compensation for K his paln and mental agony, but he dwenot sought the relref reoardmc caneellation or setting a ‘de the order of suspens1on dated 21 6 2004 I have heard learned counsel length. Presently, this Court is not in clined to interfere with the matter for the said reliefs claimed in the petition because it would be too haste for this Court to make any such View on the basis of which the reliefs claimed by the‘petitioner would be ' granted. However, in the opinion of this court, the main grievance of the petitioner appears tc be the order of suspension due to which he has been put under suspension. Admittedly, the order of suspension is appealable under Rule 23 of th Gr. pRJ—FS/350——l 2/2000—50,000. v e n . e mmw wmw‘m \/¥ C.G‘Civi1 Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. This petition is not wort admission. Hence it is dismissed at the motion stage its However, the petitioner if so advised may file an appeal a the order of suspension before the'dppe’llate authority and i such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority will decide the ame in accordance with law without being influenced by the r ks made in this order. it is made clear that this urt has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ease a d the observations made in this order will not be binding either on the appellate authority or on the disciplinary authority in any With the aforesaid observ tions, this petition stands fmally disposed of. C.C. as per rules. l Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Gr: 1‘RI——FS/350—— l2/2000—50,000. l . g ' t e e r o