OF JUDICATU W 3 ’AXMWQW “W cyA ' Vgg/S @ CONSTITU RDER OR ORDERS‘ DIRECTIONS, O §q NAT AND OTHER su OF ERTI ITABLE b $1“ w.r.No. [Q2 0F2004 if, D K Smg S mngh ag€ Occupauon ¢Eng1neer, Posted as Off1c€r, ERSU y/ Chief Zila PanchayatBilaspur Executwe Engmser, Depart— ment of Rural Engmeermg Servmes, M $Jt-aqi’Q— 2 OFT WRIT IN I O WRITS DIR TION 0 RE AT BILASPUR IN TEE HIGH COURT /o Shn Shmpal d a out 46 years, Department of Rural Engmeermg S€rvxces Servme Asstt Sub D1v1s1ona1 ah1 D1vxs1on, t Bllaspur Executive Offlcer [CG] ahl D1v1s1on, H O Pendra Dxst B11a§giirk PETITIONER / x (Q 3. ORAR Tah Pendra D15 P m UNI) W g mgéW$§§WikaW Q a‘Wg 1‘ on OF NDIA FOR ISSUAN MUS E momm'non w S H ” IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITEON NO. 1511 OF 2004 DK. Singh VS. Chief Executive Officer & Ano‘ther GRDER Post for 138—2004 ” Sd/— Fakhrudd§n E Judge gi8-2004 f ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1511 OF 2004 D.K. Singh VS. Chief Executive Officer & Another ' Shn' Ashish Shrivastava, Counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Shri Rajesh Pandey, Counsel for the intervener. ORDER Per Fakhruddily J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-5-2004 (Annexure—P/l) which has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, whereby penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner and he has been attached to Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur. It is also pointed out that by thesame order one Shxi GD. Vaishnav was directed to takeover charger and thereafter Vide subsequent order dated 24-5-2004 (Annexure-P/7) instead of Shri GD. Vaishnav, Shri C,L. Shanna was posted. 2, Notices were issued on 7-6-2004, Respondent No1, Chief , 1e Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, has not appeared and respondent No.2, Executive Engineer, Department of -Rural Engineering Services, Marwahi Division, appeared through the State counsel. K)x 3. The ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief Executive Officer is not empowered to take the aforesaid action against the petitioner. It is said that the administrative powers relating to Class-II ofhcers are vested with the State Government vide AnneXure-P/3. This position is not disputed by learned Panel Lawyer as the attachment is not sustainable. The order dated 24-5-2004 (AnneXure-P/l) is set aside. authority to proceed in the matter. 6. Having thus considered the Stand-Government? which is the \ r K competent authority, may inquire and take action in, the matter in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently M.W.P.No.l349/2004 also standsdisposed of. 1 ‘ 5d]. J Fakhruddin i Judge