V:iS ':;£~'-": sSSSi \^^^^L'.^;\\•'..-. @ r^- \-^~> ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P;(S)No.:<3>QTqL/2011 PETITIONER 1)' Manoj Kumar Dewangan, S/o Sonau Ram Dewangan, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Katagi(Tundra), Thana & Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^^y ^.^(-'•'x^ ^^ ^••^^'/>" ,••' ^ ^ -.-- ... . .. : : 1) StateofChhattisgarh.through Secretary, Departmentof Panchayat and Rural Develoment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) i Zy^ZilaRanchayat.Raipur.District Raipur (C.G.) through its Chief ExecutiveOfficer. 3f Chief Executiye Qfficer, Janpad Pancliayat, Balpdabazar, DistriGt :;;Raipur(G.G.),;,,l.','';^::,'..::;-,,:,::.; 4) Dijstrict;EEluc;atiQn,Qfficer, Raipur, DistrictRaiRur(C.G.) 5) Block • Educatipn Officer, Balodabazar, Ristrict Raipur 'tC.G^'-:.'^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PETmON UNDER ARTICLE226 OR THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^». p^v ^ 311^1w R-ii* ^H^ff sb^ 'S^ •^i^tw'M, ©•aly'Ko,[i|ivti-a;j,< .P.t^i^-o.S^'y- WHflI 9>*11<<t SIT^t XR3|T ( 'pt^q'iq) KHIW ^lfet 311^1 SB :Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moti 17-06-2011 Shri Raghvendra PradhanJ Shri Sushil Dubey, Govern) 4and 5 on advance copy. This petition has been filecj the part of respondent No.3 in Vt\ 't>l'i|(l't''fl-) tlllCtl' 4 fs<<l <Ifl«;K "^ stRpT sn^r an Shrivastava.J. counsel for the F>etitioner. nent Advocate for the State/respondents 1, by the petitioner aggrieved by inaction on e matter of reinstatement of the petitioner after acquittal in criminal case. The case of the petitioner |is that while the petitioner was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, a crimin|al case was registered against him and he was detained in custody. Vide jifdgment dated 14/12/10 passed in criminal case. No. 1158/08, the petitioner) was acquitted of the criminal charges. Thereafter, the petitioner submitt^d his joining when he came to know vide order dated 8/10/10 (Annexure P/ffi that he has aiready been dismissed from service on the ground of unauth >rised absence. The petitioner thereafter, brought to the notice of respond^nt No.3 that he was arrested in a criminal case and thereafter, he has beeh acqurtted and prayed for reinstatement. Vide memo dated 11Q/11 (Ann^xure P/2), the petitioner was required by respondent No;5 to appear along t/ith ail reievant documents so that the case of the petitioner may be consideijed. ft is the case of the peUtioner that in compliance of letter dated 11/2/11), he submitted all the documents before the Block Education Officer, Baloda Pazar. Thereafter, no decision has been taken in tfte case of the petitioner.l Memo dated 11/2/2011 shows that the petitioner was required to remain present aiong with rele\|ant documents so that the case of the petitioner may be considered. Tfierefore, it appears that the matter is still Klltlflfl 6-S\l< lls;"ll<.WI,lW.li<!'lid—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. 4-W // ;ti5' ^-~ l,^''' sn^i w Vs-w* t3ir ^n^T sf**ri<^ Deepii '3^ •*ii<fi<n'i<, yiil'H'is, fqMi'yy fc0.f.g)v^.S^'^/ll WWIT g>*liq» Sf^S TW17 (^?f35I^tT) l^IIW^lfetSII^T =?• pending consideration before tti Therefore, at this stage, 1 am not However, it is direeted that respoi wpiferifrT'WRif'if rs<<±) <fii(^i< ^f? sifilH 3i1^!t e Block Education Officer, Baioda Bazar. inclined to issue notice to ttie respondents. ^dentNo.5 shall take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner, pursuatit to memo dated 1 1/2/2011 (Annexure P/6) expeditiously. | Needless to emphasize, |i case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, he would be at liberti)' to take recourse to remedy as may be available to himunder the law. I With the aforesaid observa|j6ns, the petition is finaliy disposed off. ^.ndraMohanShrivastava Judge !!11(1<(10 O^l lyHM, <l^i<;'IW—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. +-