ém HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAIRH AT BILASPUR ‘W WRIT PETITION gS) No. i320 01'2008 PETITIONER : D.S.Thakur, Aged; about 46 years S/o Shri ‘ H.R.Thakur, R/o Vmage Pali, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) J VERSUS i . RESPONDENTS : 1. State of C.G. through the Secretary, Department ‘ of Panchayat & Rural Deveiopment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G}.) The Collector, Distribt ~— Mahasamund, (C.G.) . Janpad Panchayat Basna, Through the Chief Executive OfHcer, Tahsil & Poet — Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, (C.G.) 4. Zila Panchayt Mahasamund, Through the Chief Executive Ofiicer, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND:A SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri: J. ' Present: Shri Prateek Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State frespondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31S: day of March, 2008) ith the eonsent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. The order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Panohayat and Rural Development Depaxtment, is taken on record. 1. The petitioner was working as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund. The petitioner was placed under suspension Vide order dated 26.1}.2007 passed by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rum} Development Department, which was communicated to the petitioner through the Collector, Mahasamund, directing theiChief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, to take charge from the petitioner, immediately. r W a 2 The impugned suspension order was passed on the gound of ceitain l irrégularities allegedly committed by the petiggoner. i ! 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerésubmits that provisions of sub rule 5 of rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civgil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966 provides that if the suspension order has been passed by the State Government, ‘the charge sheet is to be issued Within a period of 90 days. On expiry of 90 days, the suspension order stands revoked. 3. Shri Gupta, learned Government Advocate fairly submits that no charge sheet has been issued as yet‘though a period of more than 9O dayshas already been passed. Accordingly, the impugned suspension. order dated 26.1 1.2007 pursuant to which no charge-sheet has been issued within the prescribed statutory period of90 days, the suspension order stands revoked. The petitioner is entitled to be posted on the same place with consequential benefits flowing from revocation ofthe suspension order. 5. The petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto Costs. f‘ ‘. . Sd/— 1‘ Satlsh K. Judge Agnihnggti' W iv