c-C.^ No:..a^y^.... FiWioday...M^.U^..^ ^^^.J^1^:' 3SFORE TH2 HON'BLE STAT5S ADM For ^egf^t^r, A.'?. P.:Siate -•^ni. Trrbunal, nA! UP. W. THiyUNAL ftAtPUR (N^ 'p .) O.A»No. .200° ^' ^YV '3Ji&^ Applicant ^ -•^^ ?Pradeep Ku.ma r Slnghjr aged 4.1 years^ 3A> •shrl^L'^R.Singh^ Designation -Surveyor (U/SuspensionV Soil cons. Offlcer, Balodabazar^ Dlstt. Haipur. V13RSUS. . N2nZa£ElA22£££l3^" sfcate t3ovt»of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary^ Agrioulture^ Soil Cons» Department^ Secretarlafc Ra.lpur* Rroject Offjlcer, Sxtencive Agrlculture .Programme^ ^alpur. .^pplicatlon U./s .19 of the Adi-niraistratlve Tribunal Act 1985 ^w<ni %9*<i^s 'Oa ~3^[ ^NIcrl^, ^Tl1^41Co, [®(<ni^^< '/jX^^-^^/0^ •'^ 200 ^?r^^ ('^f3^T) 3RF^T "5F[ ^TW TW ^W sfi^w Tuimane ^KnW^ft^ SB: Hon'Me Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivfastava. J 01-04-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for th4 Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate fc^r With the consent of learned couns^i finally. Petitioner has approached Ihis Co( recorded in his confiidential report for communicated ID him vide impugned A-1) and served on the petitioner vide ei^ petition, it has been stated that against th|e adverse remarks which has been recondejd respect of the period ending 31st Marc|h representation on 10-05-2000, the same ha^ In the return filed by the respondent^ submitted a representatjon dated 10-05-20Q respondent authorities. He also approacj remarte, no decision could be taken on the In this view of the matter, interest ofj authorities are directed to dectfe the adverse remark by a speaking order. Accordingly, the respondent auth^ representation of the petitbner within three) copy of the order. The petitioner woulcj representation in continuation ofearlier i With the aforesaid direction, the ^rqferah-v^i^^S ^K?R ^3?iRR37T^T petitioner. the State/respondents. for the parfes, the petition is heard irt, aggrieved by an adverse remark, ie period ending 31st March, 1999 comrr|unication dated 14-02-2000 (Annexure kdorsement dated 18-02-2000< In the impugned communication regarding in Ihe annual confidenfel report in 19&9, the petitioner preferred a not yet been decided. ^ it has been stated that the i^titioner }0 against adverse remarks before the |ied the Tribunat for expunging the ^aidrepresentation. justice would be served, if respondent p^titjoner's representation against the )rities are directed to dedde the jmonths from the date of receipt of a be at liberty to submit a fresh repr^sentation submitted by him. petiti|3n stands disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude 1. -^t^^^^^jiT^q-, <r^ <pm~" ts i p--2^010--i,oo,ooo.