HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH, BELASPUR wags; No. 1264 ai 2007 PETITIGNER SunderLal PaStariya, agad — 53 yeam, Sic Shri Memohar Lal Pastan'ya working as — Forast Ranga Officer, {suSpendmi}, At — BRO. (’11), Rajnandgaon, Distn'ct- Rajnaildgaon (GG‘), R/o HIG —- 64, Housing Boarii Coiony, Kamla College, Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) iiersus m RE$PQNDENTS 1. State of Chha’msgarh, Through — The Secretary, ,Department of Forest, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Préncipal Chief CoaServator of Forest, Chhat‘dsgarh, HQ. — Raipur {CG} 3. Consewator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg (C.G.) Divieional Forest Officer, (T) Kabeerdham, District Kabeerdham (C. G.) Divisional Foreet Ofiicer (T) Rajaand gaon, District Rajnandgaoo (C. G.) WRIT PETITIGN EfNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON$T1TUTION 9F IN3IA Appearance: ShrLRK. Keshalwani, counse} for ihe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivecii. Pa11ei Lawyer for the Siate on advance copy. GRAL GREER i22.11.2067§ $§§NEL KQM1§R SIHHA, J Heard on admission. The petitioner, Who is Forest Range Oiiicer, has challengeei the show-cause notices dated 6.8.99 (Annexure—P] 1), 7.2.2005 (Annexure-Pf8, 6.2.2007 (Annexure—P/5) arid 20.4.2005 (Annexure—P/ 6). O11 perusal of these notices, it would appear that certain demands have been raised against the petitioner on accountof irregularities committed by him. } W/.F.(§j Ne. 1264 ofZUW Lealngci coulm€1 for tin: patition'cr argues tha‘r demands am not justificd and ihe petitioner has iiled rspiy to each of The notices denying the co'ntents aild the matter is pending before the concerned authority as no decisions have been taken so far. I have heard iealned counsel for the petitioner at length, Admittedly, out of 4 impugned notices, one notice is of the year 1999 and other 2 notices are of the year 2005 and one notice is of the year 2067. When the petitioner has already filed reply to these notices and the matter is pending for consideration before the concerned authority, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, and the petitioner has raised factual dispute regarding the recovery as also grounds of recovery and has questioned the amount of recovery proposed against him, l am not inclined to admit this petition for hearing at this stage, which is tiled only against the show~cause notices. The matter is pending for consideration before the concerned authority. The petitioner is free to raise all grounds before the said authority, which has to be adjudicated in accordance with iaw. The petition is not worth admission, the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti