/'-, Cv\'^l IN THS HIGH COURI OF JUDICATU&E CHKATTXSSARH AI BILASPUR W . P . SO . 2^ 3 2-/200 3 ^i^i^'^ga^s PET£TIp_NER s Yashwant Kumar Dadsena S/o Badrinarayan Dadsena, ..••'^ssS'^~ Aged about 49 years, B/o RES Qtr.No.5, Charama ' 'Tahsil; Chararaa,Distt.Kanker (CG) . ^^cy .<^* re^-,...- ^SPOSDENTS <.'-'' .^- ^^ \°^ <? 4» VERSUS 1) State o£ Chhattisgarh rnrough the Secretary, Agriculture Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Director, Horticultural Department, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG). 3) The Collector, Kanker, District Kanker (CG)• 4) The Collector, Baster.Jagdalpur District; Baster (CG) . •'RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSIITUTION OF I ND I A _LL-.——&s-iAl-cuJ--u~s- •^^- ^ XI-HC-22 311^1 W Ri-ti* st^St 9K*tt^ tt^a y.; .t^ty^ '3^'*Wk'W,wSw , fi<rtl«y ^3ft^?T tT^R •S-s.SSj *II*ICT( ai*u<<» 2093 "fe^I' w^'9 ^wiwBiN ZS.08.200? Shri P. Diwaker, eounset fo Shri Ranbir Sjngh, 6ovt. Ai Heard both thecounsei. The case of the petitioner Rurat Horticultural €xtensionOf' dated 20th October, t997, he ai. •{-^^a.{- A.K. Panda & F. Singh uWsuspi cbt against the petjtiones' cnid all embezzlement gnd negligsnce. Learned counsei for the persons have been reinstated, reinstated. Moreover, since icjs initiated against •rtie petitioner n{ him. Therefore, the petitionerj indefinite period which is contrnrjy Services (Classification, Control Having heapd;the learnsd reqard to the factsl and circumsl ort tiberty to make a representa^ from today raising all his grie\| Kanker (resporident No.3) and representation 1 having regard tb ps that the petitioner was working as |icer and in the year 1997 vide order ai'4n9 with G.L. Kashyap, R.V.S. Baghel, ii^nded on account of the allegations 1-he above persons regarding some A <^1?fl^lTI *tl*t<"ff^l fa^ <^^R ^aB^TOaaiB the petitione". vocate for the State/respondents. betitioner submits that other four but the petitioner has not been six years no enquiry has been |r any challsn has been filed c^ainst cannot be kept suspended for an to Ru!e 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil <^id Appeal) Rules, 1966. |counsel for the par^-ies and havin< ton<as;of the case, t(ie petitioner is 1-ian within a pepiod of fiffeen days (aiices before -rtie i^ilector, Distf. ieairned Co'leetor shalt decide |'he relevant provisions of tHe 8ujes 1 /^- XI-HC-22 31^51 %;~, R;-(i<<i ai^i st>Ni<t» tf^n >oma ./:~- <^ ??-%^K?^ '^.:Elx''WS^^SSSS S^.^iB^iSiet'illwstflris,; SII^T 1^T^ :LJ,1?>= -NWCITWtHRB- 280.3, &*<>SI' and :oTher rel&vai'it tactors wi •• date af receipl- of the represei|1iation in on objective mcmner <md shal pcissapp.roprial'e order. According]y, ihe writ pe-( Consequently, M.(W.)P.?t also stand disposed of. Parties are entitied for d ct>t<ft<rt*<it +ii+tci['^ fe^ <P3i^K % sifiCT ail^W ^nm a penod ot thirty days trom the Stion stanSs disposed of. Bo.2140/2003 and I.A.No.72!2/2Q03 |ertified copy of this order. ^df- L.C.Bhadoo Judge iit;