COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITK3N CS) No. 5082 of2006 ^ PETIT Sashi Shukla S/o Shi'i Dafnodar Prasad Shulda. Aged about 45 yeai-s, Cluef Municipal Officer (Under Suspension) Municipal Coimcil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ; 1. State of Clihattis.earh Throueli the Secretan', Depaftment of Loca! .A.dministratioii & Urban Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur /^- /^- '^ I.^.U. 2. Collector, Bilaspur, Collectorate, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Municipal Council. Mungeli, Tlirough its Chief Mziaicipal OiBcer, Municipai Councii, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Tahsildar, Mungeli, Tahsii Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA »: Shri r LlL'A, <J* Shri Sourabh Shamia, Advocate for the pethioner. Sliri Arvind Diibey, Panel Law-ye.r for the State/respoadent • No. l,3and4. Shri Shashaiik Tiial<ur, .Advocate appearing on behalfofShri Arun Sao, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 3. (Passed on 22"°dav of June, 2009) •Shri Dubey, leamed Panel Lawyer relying on the preliminary reply dated 13.3.2007 filed bv the respondents-State, submits that tlie suspensioa order dated 27.8.2006 (Aniiexiire P,'3), subsequentlv eonfirmed bv order dated 14.09.2006, has been vacated, and vide order dated 23.12.2006 (Anneaire PJ2), the petitioner has been restoredto his original post. Shi-i Shamia, learaed eouiisel appeariiig for &e petitioner, despite havine knomi the fact as is evident fi'om the retum, conceals the faet deliberatelv that the ordei- of susoeasion has been revoked. Ti-iis is nol fair on the part of the counse! by not making a e!ear statemeiit or acceptmg the fact before this Court '.vhen tae facts are so elear. In view of the subraissions made by leamed counsel appearing for tlie respondent-Statc, the petition is disiriissed as havins become i'lfnictuous. Ajtut Sd/- SatishK.A§ Judgt s°