IGH COURT f}? CHEwYATTEgaARH AT BILASPUR v‘_‘:h w/Lnt s‘é-ililuu :ga," (f3) V Nu. '_,e 417 0f2uut , mvr PFTWHWNER : BB Vgmza, S/o Sim Manjram aged about 50 ysarg Assist-am Frojed Off} cer Mungsli, District Bilaspur (CG). VER $U§ p. QESPgrgyENgg State of Chllat‘tisgarlg through the Seeretary Agiculture Department, DKS Bhawzm, Raipur (CG). The Director, Agriculmre Raipur (CG). The Dcputy Eirec'tor, Agriculmre, Bilaspur (CG). The, Collectog Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) ’hlze Mr. Salish K. Agiihotrig JD! § 011 B: H Shri Rakesh Paiiday, Arivocafe far the petitimiet: Shri U.N.S. Bao, Govt. Advecaie for 'iha State. €3RAL GRDFR (Faa‘aeil uh M 26" w ui F we The petitioner, being aggiaved by ihis order dated. 20.12.2006 (Aimermre P/l) pagsed by the Coliecior, Bilaspur. fiied this petition i11T11g1ing the valiciity of ihe said order. The petitioner iin‘ther questioos the oharge ghee: oated 10.10.2006 (Aimemre 3’9) issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Agriculture, Raipur (CG) on the ground that the same charge sheet has already been isgued earlier resultin into the i111pesition of withdrawal of gtonna f I e of one ineremeni simplieiter. The oemplahiants filed a Writ petition beihg WP. No. 2374/2066 (Nimiijah Bharti and another VS. State of ChhaitiSgarh and others). Ssé‘ill Lgewi .ir%L_i0l1 ttlcuejalpgrtk O Ale I). et-j)!‘ hiaSlll‘ .0 $1.1? liéCéSSarytp S_€ S against the reepondeni No. 7. This Cemty by aide? deted $305200? (Aimemre P/zQ ohserved as under- “The grievahee ofthe petitioners in this writ petition is that under the Indira Khet Ganga Scheme (Kisah Samridhi Yojana) floated by the State Government of Chhattisgarh, they made an. application to the Deputy Director, Agi‘icuiture, Biiaepur, the 3rd respondent herein to gram the beeetit under the said scheme, but, the 6m respondent herein demanded bribe to grant the benefit. When that was brought to the notice of the Coilector, Biiaspur, the 2nd reseondent herein, he initiateri 4epartmental proeeediitgs agaihst the Said otticer and the said otEeer was punighed with a pretty of detain} of one inereineitt r )g» _,~,a- H e 2 @ without cumuiafvc effect, Iizdaai, the penar‘y impssed on the 6m respondem W the 2nd respcndent, in a bribe case is a quite startling, pmticularly in View of the law laid down by tbs Apex Court that in case of comption and misappropriatiom minimum penalty is either removal or dismissal from service. The petitioners complain that his applicatioe made to the 3rd respondent is nOt yet disposed of by the 3rd respondent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the above application of the petitioners made under Indira Khet Gama Scheme (Kishan Sailridhi Yojana), if not already done, » Within a period of one month from the date of ieoeipt of a copy of ‘57 this order. No costs." ’3‘ Pursuant to the Court's order dated 435052006, the respondent No. 2 stayed the earlier order of imposition of penalty of stoppageof one increment siinplieiter and initiated second enquiry against. the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner, by this petition, is impugimg the order dated 20. 12.2006 (Aimexure P/l). 4. Learned. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second show cause notice on the same cause of aotion which has resulted into imposition of minor penalty of stoppage of one increment simpliciter, nan not he looked into again by initiating second departmental proceediLgs. Jl , .. Be that as it may, since the Collector has initiated second. enquir ' pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2006 passed by this C .nrt in WP. Not i 237’4/2GQ6 (Niranjan Bhaiti and another Vs. State. of Chhattisgarh and othersXSupra); the order cannot he examined. in this petition as this is for the appellate authority to examine the said order. 6. The petitioner ought to have filed review petition, which the petitioner has failed to do so. Thus, this petition is not maintainable to examine the order passed by a Coordinate Bench, in this petition. The petition is aoeordingly dismissed. No order asto eosts. Sd/— Judge . u l Satish K. Agnlhotrl ‘t i Sahu