PAQE ^ ^'f 00 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAanm WRIT PETITION.Ao. ^J ^ ^- /2006 (S.B.) PETITIONER , ANIL KUMAR TRIVEDI S/o Late Shri, P.D. Trivedi Aged About 47 Yrs. R/0 Kothra Road Vikas Nagar Tahsil and District Raigarh iC.G.) VERSES RESPONDENTS \1^' ....•<'/ ^v"..<")^ <^°~'^:w"" NX"...-i^^''' ...- .-••"''...^'^' -^y^" / ^ .<•' 1. South Eastem Coal Field Ltd. Through, Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road SECL Bilaspur. (C.G.) 2. ChiefGeneralManager South Eastern Coal Field L.td S.E.C.L. Raigarh Region Raigarh(C.G-) 3. Deputy General Maiiager S.E.C.L. Gevera Project Distt. Korba. (C.G.j 4. Staff OCHcer (Miningl S.E.C.L. Raigarh Region Raigarh (C-.G.) 5. Inquiry OfHcer Cum Senior Personal Officer S.E.C.L. Raigarh Region Raigarh (C.G.) 6. General Manager (Leeal/Indust.) S.E.C.L. Seepat Road Bilaspur. CIih&ttissarh.. s^.lll.JKALLlO^CU. WRIT UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TODIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, OKDERS OR DIHECTION XI-HC-78 an^T^f^THi (WT sn^r gOTR; nn\>^ ^ *11*1 (41 sh^llcb 3:=T '^l'Mlcfi), tSTftu'IS, [si<-IW>i< ^.^.^.M.S^.wTzooC 3ll^l '4a'»i('i^^6"!,^) wgTW flfitr sn^r Heord Shri Bhaskar Payashi qilltll'fl'f HWVli ff fS^6 <R|«K ^isri^ETsn^T counsel for the petitioner. By the instant petition, the |»etitionerhas challer^ed the validity and cor-rectness of the order Annexu^e-P/1 dated 3-7-2006 whereby he has been placed under- suspension on the ground that he is engaged in the business of selling ond acquir'ing of the tanded property. As argued by learned coun^l for the petitioner, the main grievance of the petitoenr is that without m|3king detsiled enquiry into the matter as to whether the petitioner is enga^ed himself in the sel!ing and acquir'ing of the landed property respondents h^ive placed him under suspension. Having hear'd learned couns^l for the petitioner, I hove perused the impugned or'der Annexure-P/1 in i|(hich after placing the petitioner under suspension, he hos been asked to ^bmit his expatanation within a period of 72 hours os to why disciplinary pr(>ceedings should not be initiated agoinst him. The petitioner'is at tiberty 1^ the impugned order and the com| directed to decide the matter aftl by the petitioner', within a period the same,. If the arievance of th^ ^ submit his explanation as asked for by ^etent authority i.e. respondent No.4 is ^r considering the explanation submitted ^f 2 weeks from the date of receipt of \ petitioner- is not redr-essed by the said order, then he will be at liberty t^ avail remedy avai!able to him under the With the aforesoid observa' Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.3 \Kin, the wr'rt petition stands disposed of. ^81/2006 also stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge