^ .s^ Narendi'a SIiLiida, aged aboiit 59 years, s/o Late Shri B.C. Shukla, In.spector of PoUce, K/o 5-B Street 28 Sector 8 BhUai, Distiict Durg(CG) 1 State of Chhattisgarli, Thi'ough Secretan", Hoiiie Departaient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Maiitralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director Geaeral of Police, Raiplir, Chhattisgarti. 3. Inspector General of PoUce, Raipur, ClAattisgarh 4. Senior Superiiitendeat of Police(SSP) Dui-g, CUiattisgarh S. Additional Superhitendent of PoUce(Rural) Dui-g, CbJiatdsgarh s^T-TjTs^ ;sp1 •'S-'S^ ^'§P iT-1E.ii?. ^r^l*^^'Tt"TiiT^1 Li, Si^^S^S.t <£^0 ^^^?1 ^ £^Si ^/IU?jisiff? iA A U i A^B'ii1' Shri. Jitendra Pali, Counsel for tlie petitioner. Sliri Pradeep Singh, Paael Lawyer for tlie State on advaiice copy- ^o^ -a 1 onft!'?^ t-SaA A*dU^^ -i ^ Heai'd 011 admissioii. Leai-ned couiisel for f&e peutioner arpj.es ttiat a departmental enquiiy was conducted agamst tlie petitioiier 011 maay chai-ges leveUed against him ajid tiie Enquhy Officer found fhe petitioner guilt\T of the aforesaid chai'ges. ThereeAer, tlie discipliaaiy authorit^" passed impiigned order on 8.10.2007 aild awarded punistLment of coinpulsory" retii'ement to Uie peunoiier. Oii bemg pomtedfy asked from leamed coiuisel for tlie petitioner as to whefher tliere is aiiy provision of appeal aiid tbe pentioner has preferred emy appeal, he submits tliat fliere is a provision of appeal, but the petitioner has not preferred aiiy appeal against tliis order aiid has dii-ectly approached to the FIigh Court. W.P. (c) No.7074/2007 In view of tlie fact fhat fhere is a provision of appeal, i am not iiiclmed to entertaia tliis petition for heariag at tliis stage. TIie petition is disposed of. However, fhe petitioner shall be at Uberty to lile an appropriate appeal before fhe concenied depai'tm.eatal authority aiid he shsdl also be at ubei-n'" to approach this Court agaiti, il~ such aii exigency aiises. —— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge .'•j— J^^)/U f^