^T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVtSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUN8L KUMAR SJNHA, J. Appeljant Petltioner ResDondenfs Writ AppeaS No. 30S of 2010 Dr. A.D. Yaduraj, S/o late Shri D.R. Yaduraj, aged about 57 years, Section Officer (under suspension) Guru Ghasldas .Central University, Bilaspur R/o Kasturba Nagar. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versys 1. Guru Ghasidas Central University, BSSaspur, through Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Central University, University Campus, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Registrar Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Union of India through the Secretary Department of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Writ appeaS under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court {AppeaS to Divlsion Bench Act. 2006) Present: Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.5/ State. ^Ate^ :(r -H' JUDGMENT (3rd September, 2010) The foltowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Prafull Bharat; learned counsel forthe appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appetlant Dr. A.D. Yaduraj, has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 14-07-2010, passed in W.P.(S) No.2543/2010. 3) The appetlant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliet's: "A. That this Honourable Court may, kindly, be pteased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the impugned order of suspension dated 30/3/2010, ANNEXURE P-1; B. That this Honourable Court may, kindly, further be pleased, to quash the charge sheet, ANNEXURE P-2, C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstance of the case." 4) The petitioner, thus in substance; was seeking quashing of the order dated 30-03-2010, whereby he was ptaced under suspension. The petitioner was ateo claiming further relief of quashing of the charge-sheet issued against him. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner and the provisions contained in Section 6(4) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 found that the officiating/ in-charge Registrar was ^^ ^ ^ :^ri^-1'^ ^/l ;ii '^ ^ ^ J J ''^. ^^',.^ H' subbu competent to pass the appellant's suspension order and initiate departmental enquiry against him. Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the appellant's writ petitlon vide impugned orderdated 14-07-2010. 6) Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has not given due weight to Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the Central Universities Act, 2009. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant; the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 14-07-2010; and the specific provision contajned in Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 ofthe Central Universities Act, 2009, we do not find any infirmity either in the order dated 30-03-2010, whereby the appellant was placed under suspension or the impugned order dated 14-07-2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter. 8) The intra Court appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge