^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BtLASPUR W.P.rS^No. 798 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. Raj^h Das, S/o. Late Hari Das, aged about 42 years, Residerrt of Vitlage- Baloda, Tahsil- Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Affairs, D.K.S. Bhavran, Raipur(C.G.) Superintendent of Polfce, Janjgir- Champa, District Janjgu--Champa OfRcer Incharge, Poiice Station Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Reserve bispector, Police Line, Janjgir - Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITOIN UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocateforthepetitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, Panel Lawyerforths respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11th day of Maroh, 2008} 1. The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 15.1.2 (Annexure P/1), whereby the ordei;.of suspensfon dated 3.10.2006 (Annexure P/2), passsdagainst the petitioner, was cancelled and ttie petitioner was attached with the reserved police line, Janjgir Champa, after revocation of his suspension. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitionerv/as woridng as Consteble at police station Baloda, district Janjgir Champa. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 3.10.20^ ;3&§:'S' ;c' w itas ; •^•^^^s^ F, 5. 6. (Annexure P/2). The charge sheet was issued on 29.11.2006. Since the charge shset could not be served wiBiin a period of 45 days, as required in sub-rute (2-a) of Rute 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Confro! and Appeal) Rutes, 1966 (for short 'the Rutes, 1^6'), »issuspension order dated 3.10.2006 wss revoked by order dated 15.1.2(X}7 and the petitioner was attached with the reserved police iine, Janjgir Champa. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P/1) the petlSoner has filed this petition, seeldng quashing ofthe said order. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that the taw of revocation of order of suspension is cleariy prescribes in sub-rule (5) of Rufe 9 of the Rute, 1966. He ftirther submits that once the suspension has been revoked on expiry of the period of 45 days, fte petitioner ought to have been posted at the originai place i.e. poiice station Baloda, not any other place and thereafter, the petitioner could have been posted at any other place. Smt. Smitha Ghai, learnsd counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the impugned order datsd 15.1.8X)7(Annexure P/1) has subsequentiy been amendsd on 6.7.2007(Annexure R/4), whereby order of attachment of the petitioner with ttie reserved police tine Janjgir Champa was modffied to the extent that the petitioner has been posted at reserved police line, Janjgir Chmapa. She further submits that this petition has become infrucfaious as the subsequent order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure R/4), which is in eristence, is not under chaltenge. The impugned order datsd 15.1.2007, already stands amended, Uierefore, the relirf sought for in this petition cannot be granted. After considering ttie rival submisaons made by teamed counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the pteadings and documente -^l ',"~&w?fSW "s^t' f 1 1 j ^ %.. £' /? ^ ''SSSSa-y ^ ^^" ^;y' "'"'te.GSS8'" Thakur /^ appended thereto, 1 am of the consklered opinion ttiat this petition cannot be considered on merite, as the subsequent order dated 6.7.2007(Annexure R/4) is not in question which has modified the order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P/1). 7. !n view of the foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merite of the case, this petttion is dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that Uie subsequent order dated 6.7.2007 is not in question, whereby the earlier order dated 15.1.2007 has been modified. Sd/- SatishK.AgniIiotri Judge