SINGLE BENCH @ ,5j BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ^(9?'9-/2010 PETITIONER c^^ )&N>1 •^-^ ^-*'1'' ^ \° • RESPONDENTS : •yi^y's' '%^ '^^-" '^. fft'1 ' ""~:^ ^'.- .^.. t/l ~\ . '•!'% $ ^Es-s-av.sM ff s •sKW'''w'v'"""y i^ s ^K^^ ^i iA^a^ •i ^*^ii"iff ii ^ ,/- Dr. R. N.Netam S/o late C.S. Netam, ffO aged about 54 years, In - charge Joint Director, Directorate of Health Services, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Chief Secretary Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) '/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. -~^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETITIONEf VVRIT PETITtON (S) N0. 6007 OF 2010 Dr. R.N.Netam RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisciarh & Another (Writ Petltion under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDERtORAU (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2011) 1. Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.08.2010, whereunder, on t'ne basis of certain alieged flnancial irreguiarities, the departmentai proceeding was contemplated. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a circular dated 23.11.2010, wherein, it has been stated that an employee may not be placed under suspension when there is no serious a'iegation contempiated In the departmental enquiry or which may not lead to removal from service. The circular appears to be suppiemental to the statutory provisions. Thus, the circuiar cannot be given overriding effect on the clear provisions of the rules. Even othenwise, the allegations, which are leveled against the petitioner is not of simple nature, but of serious nature and having regard to the clear provisions of Rule 9(1)(a) ofthe M.P./C.G. Civii Servlces (Ciassification, Contro! S Appeal) Rules, 1966, there is no infirmity in the order, as departmental enquiry has aiready been initlated against the petitioner. Thus, no Interference is warranted in this case. 3. Accordlngly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. , Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok