^ri^A l^ l'C1\i^ ^^ ?01 iE <& Parmeshwar Deen Yadav, S/o Shri Chetan Prasad Yadav, Aged about 51 years, Upper Division Teacher, Go'irt. Hr. Sec. School - Barpali Champa, Block - Bamhnidih, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Sscretary, Department of lucation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.. Diredor . Pubiic Chhattisgarh Go'4. Raipur. District Education Officer, Distt. - Janjgir Champa - (C.G.) rit ADpeal Under Sectlon 2(1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiflih Coyrt (Appeal to Divislon Bench) Act, 2006 read wlth Under Ryje 157(10i(a) ofHiah Court of Chhattisssrh Ruies,2005 Shri Anil Singh appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj State/respondents. t, learned counsel for the earned Govt. Advocate for Sffs ith The foliov/ing judgment of the Court.was psssed by ^ Appeilant - Parmeshwar Deen Yadav has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 16-03-2007, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1528/2007. 2. AppellanVpetitioner - Parmeshwar Deen Yadav filed the writ pstition for the following reliefs: "(7.1) That the Hon'ble Court kindly be cai for initia! recored retated to that petitioner. (7.2) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be d a suitable writ for quashing the suspension jer dated 23/24/08.2005 passed by the ~ ipondent no.3. (7.3) Cost of the petitioner may atso be 3. The appeliant/petitioner, thus in substance was seeklng quashing of the order dated 23/24-08-2005, whereby the petitioner was placed u.nder suspension. 4. Appellanfc'petitioner - Parmeshwar Deen Yadav was working as Upper Division Teacher at the relevant time. Respondent No.3 - District Education Officer; District Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 23/24-08-2005, impugned in the writ petition, placed the petitioner under suspension on account of his alleged misconduct. A departmentat enquiry against the petitioner was initiated and a char.qe-sheet was issusd to him on 04-10-2005. 5. The petitioner's main contention before^the Writ Court was that the order of petitioner's suspension was bad as thf 'was passed in breach c-f the mandatory i^titejjlitekfiasa ^r"'- fs "»S»i1'.' ? ^Eft E! Jff. Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules, 1966), inasmuch as the order of suspension was not passed by the appointing authority of the petiiioner. 6. Learned Slngle Judge on a thorough consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any substance in She submissions of the peti therefore, passed the impugned order ited 16-03-2007 dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 7. Shri Anil Singh Rajput, iearned counsei for the appeiiant vehementiy argued thatthe learned Single Judge has erred in not iving due weight to the submissions advanced on behaif of the Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Govt. Advoca' respondents/State, on the other hand, supported order and submitted that as the departmentai contempiated against the petitioner and in Tact, a vvas ,'ssued to him and the order of the petitloner'! irv was r.qe sheet 'a' though was passed by the District Education OTficer, who. was the lower authority to the petitioner's appointing authority, by virtue of second proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 ofthe Ruies, 1966, the setitioner's order of suspension cannot be found fault with. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's, appointing authority was the Coilector. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 23/24-08-2005 piacina the petit er susoension was ^z SUObi, passed by the District Education Offtcer. By v'irtue of the second proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Ruie 9 ofthe Rules, 1966, the authority lower to the appointing authority is aiso empowered to pass the order of suspension of a Government Servant with-the further requirement that the authority placing the Government Servant under suspension shail forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in w'hich the order was made. A bare perusal of the petitioner's suspension order dated 23/24-08-2005 reveals that a copy of the said order of t'ne petitioner's suspension was sent to the Collector, Janjgir-Champa. In our opinion, the dispatch of copy of the said order is sufficient compliance of the mandatory requirement of the.second proviso to Sub-ruie (1) of RuteQoftheRules, 1966. 10. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order dated 23/24-08-2005 whereby the petitioner was piaced under suspension. 11. The writ appeal, therefore, Is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha £»' n B^ K3S ;'-sa "^M sas uaa MsS^t II Etia