HIGH COURT OF CHEATIISGARH AT EILA$PUR ’‘ ‘ ’ edra Shvs, . Le Shri .N.Shris‘ age ot ‘ 43 y, Pasa ASsint Ge 1H, Ri. ort Powsr House oad, ' amaala, Ami<ar, isrict urgu G) . a of Chhattisgarh, Tuh the Stcrery, C- operaa»~ . D€par3nen, inisy, DKS Bha Ripur Mtr awn, a {C Th6 anaging irtor, Cattisarh Sate ntyavashyak Saka Vitta vam Vik axy aipurfCG Tho ilector, s‘m‘o rea, Bainthp, (CG) The EXue c vaa’k ahki k eCtiv Ofiier, District Antyashy Saar Vias iti Malya, istrict Sam dit D K akunth ) orea, Bipur (CG The Deput Collect, carge Deputy, Director, Panchayat Social Welfare, Distu‘ct Korea (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I 'Sbri Alok Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner; Shri Pankaj Shn'vastava, P.L. for the State. Appearance: ORAL ORDER ' (13.05.2009) ' ,__ ‘ ‘,..;mr-r¢..i‘ SB : HGNELE SHRE JUSTECE PRITINKER DIWAKER wr. {s3 No. 2458/2099 PETITIONER Devn ria Sfo at Pva, d abu ears t ta rad o Nh R Nnka b1pu Dt Sja (C Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Stte hrog ta o tiv it G} M Dec hhg t A hari A as Nigam Madit, R) Co Dit Ko kuur a y or Inh many. With the consent of the parties, the matmr is heard ; Challenge in the present writ petiu'on is to the ach'on of the respondents by which after suspending the petitioner on 21.8.2008 though the departmental proceedmgs have been initiated against him but contention of the petitioner is that certain relevant documents have not been given to hjm I which are basic documents for suspending the petitioner. His further grievance is that'though he is under suspension but has not been paid the subsistence allowance. Contention of learned counsel for tige petitioner is that he has made several representations for payment of subsistence allowance but the same has not been paid to him the respondents are not considering his representation and the other grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been supplied with certain documents with regard tofzf departmental enquiry whereas they are necessary to tile t some reply. To this, learned counsel for the State contended that so far as the subsistence allowance of the petitioner is concerned, his representation would be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. In respect of supply of documents, it has been submitted by the State counsel that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and moreover it is not clear that the authorities have refused to supply the reievant documents. He submits that for this also the petitioner may make a detailed representation to the higher authorities. ‘ I have heard counsel for the parties. .. knum...» ‘ Tepetion i dispose o i a direcon th sonts t ecide he prestati o t petitioner exp de wi la repdan o d t reenon f he editidusly in accoranc th w. h’ti s d f wth ti to e