[^AT^ IltT;A^2aE)lltlHO'.ClTI''.;^i^ L'^'U CUar-A. 1. ..ja(Atd<M3-^U;ff..; |.V*»SXt,|-. pmcnra^ER WRIT«HBmtION"KQ. 3736/2004 ^ RESPONDENTS ^^9r-^ ®r.M.P.S. Parihar, S/o. SIiri Birfaham Smgti Panhar, Agsd afiout 58 yg^s, PFesent^-w^rEiag as Deputy Da'eGtO^ViBfenlaaiy SeTviees, AmhSeafwa; ©istrictSui^uja ^e.Q.) State pf Chhafetasgarh, Th®3]gighits. 'SWBeitaiy,, .De5>SEl:mmi1:^s^nei.tUi.H"e WRET BE'BI'nOS Mantralgya, D.lg.S^Kiawaaa,, aailiur (C-a.) Efu-eefor, ;, Qirectorate of^/ %e1se@Baig?'.: Sjervi&^, Kstfga^^g.O.^, ' ;. jqintBm'eetcB-,' \EetBritiaiySea°vjees, Bilaspur (£:.©.) ,AaaaG^....aS66^MB'j^;'KE%:. G^»SHEITB'®EON" veiSEsaRE.ssx^^^EiSW &SSS:1SWBSSSV'SS D!REC'H^tS^<Ml@@^M^OSEaSSiR!S: fiia XI-HC-22 STI^W^i' f^riqian^T sniiqiuftn 3ST •<l|'lllcl*l, s"(flwis, fclclltiy 3ii^i i<qch ii*<ptisnH|ch-—-""""-'--*--y^ 200^_ 3n^r?^iiw;HfN *iof<"t41^ tiiii-i'l'fffe'^1 <fa^ii< /» ^3rf^ir3TI^T 19.4.2005 1 —~ Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, c^unset for tha petiBonet.- Mr. G.K. Beriwal, Deputy ijKdvocate Generat for the State/respondente. Heard both the counsel. Return has atready been filed on behalf of the State/respondents and rejoinder has afso been fited on ttehalfofthe petitioner. The petitioner has filed 28-9-2004, whereby the petitioi| this writ petrtion under Article 226 of the ConsBution of India, questionin^ the tegalityand propriety of the orderdated ier has been suspended in contemplation of Uie disciplinary inquiry under RtjtleS (1) (a) ofthe ChhatUsgarh CivilServices (Classification, Control and Apj?ea() Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as •theRules'). t The only argument raisetl by leamed counsel for the petitionsr isthat the petitioner was suspended 01 Government i.e. respondent Ncj months, charge sheet has not petitioner's suspension stands ofRule9oftheRules. On the ofter hand, IU| \\ 28-9-2004 vide Annexure P-11 by theState 1.1, and even aftar the lapse of mor®than six Ibeen served on ttie petiUoner, tiierefore, the ^evoked as per the pro^so to sub-rule (5) (a) r. G.K. Beriwal, leamed DepUty Advocate General for the State of Chh^ttisgarh argued that the petitioner has ttie remedy to flle an appeal unc|er Rule 23 of the Rules which as per the rejoinder, the petitioner has ^lready availed the opportunity." Therefore, pending appeai the petitionejr !s not entitied to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of|the Constitution of India. Havjng heard leam^d {sounsel for the parties, I have perused the record and the relevant Rules. t XI-HC-22 sn^rw f^Tffisn^T ShHWWf?tT s^'^nqT^pr^ siT(1*i'ie, Riciitfy 3-n^i <^ach . \ A. .\~-=> /. . f'07 __ KWrilAKi*--*'"'"'-"-"'"'-^^ 200^- R'b.A 3TI^T¥RIIWHf?cT -2-t- fft® Proviso to sub-ruie (5) "pravided furtSierttiat ihe o/efer af ihe pefiod of 90 days from copy o/ charges and ottier doci isswd to such Govemment ser^s the lapse of six months no ch^r delivered to the petitioner herfein suspsnsion order stands revoke4 Now, coming to the ques|tion per rejoinder, the petiUoner prefe Govemment. But, learned coun< was filed long back on 8-10-200ft, far. The petitioner was sus| Agriculture (Veterinary Services)] has been preferred, that is pendi^g Proviso to sub-rute (5) (a) of where after expiry of 90 days ^ been served upon the revoked. As per the decision of Sahnia and another vs. Indiah (2003)2 SCC 107, the rute of e>|c alternative remedy is a rule of Court is entitied to invoke the| circumstances; (i) where the fundamentel rights; (ii) where th^ suspenc|ed tlte wtit +l'iird'in-l •<l*1dTiffe'</l tRl+AK ^ari^iTsn^T ^) of Rute 9 of the Bules envisages that y suspension shalt stand revoked on expiry ctefe of ofder of auapenaion, in case (he ^ments isterred to in sub-rute (2-a) are not t'snf'. It is admltted posltlon that even after ^rge sheet or other documente have been Therefore, as per this proviso, the of atternative remedy, it is true that as (rred an appeal which is pending before the ^el for the petltioner submits that the appeal |t, but the same has not been disposed of so ?ended by the Secretary, Department of |i.e. respondent No.1, against ttiat an appeal decision, and that has not been decided, 9 of the Rules is mandatory in nature, ^harge sheet orother documents have not |ed emptoyee, then the suspenslon stands Rtute Apex Court in the matter of Harbanstal Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in •^clusion of writ jurisdicUon byavailability of an 4scretion and one of compulsion. The High extra ordinary jurisdiction in the followng petition seeks enforcement of any of the re is failure of principles of natural justice; or XI-HC-22 3n^Tq>T f?TO>3n^r SfiqRiflfef <- Soma y. >- <0~ •^ ~s',f y^ "'>> ; '^,s 3ST^rRi?pr, ®Tfl<a'i6,Rioiy^< 3ii^ivtacft ) iiini sn*<iw •••—"••••—••••••^^ 200 </— 311^1 gwiwtri^r prov|so circumsltances where the orders or vires of an Act is chaitonged. In the present case, of 90 daystime withputserving contrary to the provisions of Therefore, in the above argument advanced by leame^t petition is not maintainable. In the result, the wit 28-9-2004 is quashed to the revoked in view ofthe provisions| the Rules. It is made clear that | the power under dause (b) of charge sheet, if it considers' In yiew of this order, 9362/2004, and 2862/2005 stan<t Parties are entitled procee^ings aro wholly without jun'sdicfion or the contitiuation of the suspension order after expiry i^harge sheet and other documents becomes to sub-rule (5) (a) of Rute 9 of the Rutes. do not findany substance in the Deputy Advocate General that the writ petitijan extent sub for cerljfled thllfcl'fl-1 lllclT^''fei^t<Rl+AI< ^Sf^q'.SD^T isaltowed and the impugned order dated that suspension of the petitioner stands [ of 2 proviso to sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 9 of ]the Govemment will be at liberty to exercise (>-rule (5) of Rule9 ofthe Rules aftsr servlng so to do. ^.(W.)P.No.4208Q004, IA.Nos.7831/2004, disposed of. copyofthisorder. expe<lient Sd/- LC. BhadoG Judge ('fl&sloii) y