IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P ls) NO. PETITIONER OF 2009 a ngie Banah / BP T1war1 S/ o Late Chandrlka Prasad Tlwarl Aged about 54 years R/ o Newly formed Nagar Panchayat Chhuriya,‘ ' Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of ' Urban ‘ Administration and Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS Divisional Joint Director, Department of Urban Administration and Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Collector, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Distt. Rajnandgaon C¢&)L. Sub D1V1s1onal Officer (Revenue) Dongargaon, D1stt Rajnandgaon (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PAP'I‘II‘I'H’ ADk nr.‘ nwvu _ <\s\° HleH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR _ WRIT PEHTION (S) No 4810 0t 2009 State of Chhatt1sga1h & Others OF THE COVSTITUTIOLN OF NDIA' K A nihom PETITIONER B.P.Tlwan. VILR§US W WRIT PETYHON UNDER AR’HCLE 226 SB ’ble Shrl Sati Smt $1111 P Fouz1a K Bhadun MHng Panel Advoca Lawyer e for tor the the pet1t1oner Shaw/respondent \To 1, 2 Shrl 3 and Y S 5 Thakul Advocate for the respondent V No. 4. Present. ' ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08E; (Lty of Ma eh, 2u10) 1. r By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated eby the petitioner was placed under the Collector, Rajnandgaon on two grounds, firstly, that e the petitioner under suspension the State Government, and secondly, that under the provisions of Rule 9(5)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) arge-sheet is not the suspension order comes to an 11.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) Wher suspension by the Collector is not competent to plac because the appointing authority of the petitioner is Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules, 19667), if the eh issued within a period of 45/90 days, end automatically. petitioner submits that in 2. Smt Mnza learned counsel appearing for the the suspensmn order was issued on t l the present case, admittedly .2009 (Annexure .1 11.02.2009 and the charge sheet was issued on 20.07 , Pm) which is beyond 90 days of plac Placement 0t the petitioner under suspensron beyond the perio days as the ease may be is illegal and unauthorized vShri Bhadui‘i, learned couns m6 the petitioner under suspension. d of45/90 el appearing for the respondent ho l 2 3 and 5 does , not want to contest . the petition on merits and submits that § J. Hon sh 5?? Z e been entertained 1 as there is statutmy kw rum available to the petitioner for redressa] of his ‘ the petition should not hav appellate fo g‘ievances. facts situation of the case which is very evident 4. Having regard to the and does not involve any complicated or disputed question of facts, it is gound that ellate forum is available to the petitioner. Further, learned not necessary at this stage to dismiss the petition on the statutory app spute counsel appearing for the State does not dispute the factual di involved in this petition and the averments made by the petitioner. the competence of the Collector, Without expressing any opinion on Rajnandgaon, with regar order is not sustainable aher a suspension passed by the Collector on 11 impugned suspension order was (Annexure P/ 1) Government on 20.07.2009 (Annexur d to suspension of the petitioner, the impugned period of 90 days. The .02.2009 and charge sheet was issued subsequently by the e P/5). Thus, the period of 90 days relevant. The impugned from the date of order of suspension is suspensio of order passing the order i.e. to sub rule 2(a) of Rule 9 ofthe Rules, l966. 6. In vi been filed, liberty is reserved since charge sheet has already n order stands revoked on completion of 90 days from-the date 11.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) under proviso stated hereinabove, the impugied ew of the indisputable facts as suspension order dat However, to the State/respondents to t ed 11.02.2009 (Annexure P/l ) is quashed. advised, in ake appropriate steps, if so accordance with law during pendency ofthe departmental enquiry. xtent indipated above. p H Sd/_ i . I ; hatish V " avJudge K. Agnihotri i l i 7. The writ petition is allowed to the e There shall be no order asto costs. '4 .