SIMfi! E ^L ^ ""^} ^.F^ 1L- ^— ^•^ ^ l U '-.; IL^>V -^"~1 = .r-1;; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt P^etjtioiL N0^ Iq^0) "5-/20Q6 PETITIONER Deen Bandhu Rathore ...^ Aged about 63 -•••'. •l&' ..'••"^S!<"' .. \/)b.;.-/^P<.:-"' .//'" S/o. Ramji Rathore RESPONDENTS PETITION R/o. Village Dhurkot, Tahsil Janjgir Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ^•A. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Revenue Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) /' 2. The Collector, Kardha District Kawardha (C.G.) ^3. Accountant General (General Provident Fund) Pension Bada Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) fi. Tahsildar Tahsil Pandariya, Dist. Kawardha (C.G.) JJAA^ 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ISSUANCE OFJ/VRLT^ WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAWLU^ WRIT OR OTHER SUITABLE DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDER OR ORDERS HI©HCOURT OF CHHAmS©ARHAT BILASPUR -W.,P. (s) No. 1097 of 2006 Petitioner been Bandhu Ratiiore Versus iespondents State of Chhatt'isgarh &. others Single Bench: Hon'ble AAr. Justice Sstish K. Agmhotri. Shri Ramakant Pcmdey, Advocate for •Hie petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, beputy Advocate Seneral with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Advocate ©enerulfor the State/respondents. l»;' -ill ORGER >th (Passed on l3Tn day of December, 2006) TTie following order of the Court vws passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner, whi!e workin9 as Patwari in Tahsi! Janjgir, a crimina! case was registered against him. The petitioner. by order dated 11.7.1986, was placed under syspension under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civi! Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Ruies, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'lhe Rules, 1966'}. The criminal case resulted into acquittal by the judgment and order dated 15.11.1996 passed by fne Specia! Judge in Specrat Case No. 3/87. The petitioner was ther^after reinstated in the service by order dated 20.3.1997 (Annexure P/l) and the suspension was revoked. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Lormi, by order dated 11.9.1997, (Annexure P/2) again syspended the pe+itioner because of pending of •^^^i^s^&^R^^ -~3tfSKWSv£,.^si.^^.r-^- '*''-...; the appeal filed by the Lokayukt Organization, Bhopal before the ->s High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur against the order of acquittal. 3. It is admitted position that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial. This Court, while considering the identical point of hw involved in W.P. No. 4033 of 2004 (Somtosh Kumar Asati Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by order dated 20.4.2005, held that the suqiension order connot continue uniess the appeal is allowed and the petitioner is convicted. The respondents/authorities were directed to consider the reinstatement of the petitioner as a!so the payment of full back wages and other consequential benefits after deducting the amount of subsistence albwance already paid to the petitioner. 4. The same issue again came in W.P. No. 2175 of 2004 (Ohaneshwar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another). This Court, by order dated 4.12.2006. held afi under:- "Jhe purpose of su^ension in of investigation, inquiry or trk petitioner cannoi tale 9of the Rules of 1966" itie pfesent case, i.e., smswlh di^sosal a criminal offence, is alreody oyer in fhe criminal irial. Thus. Ihe ier suspension continuousiy even under 3» 5. In view of the orders dated 20.4.2005 and 4.12.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4033 of 2004 (Santosh Kumar Asati Vs. State of Chhat)-is9arh and others) and in W.P. Mo. 2175 of 2004 (Dhaneshwar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another), -this petition is allowed ^s and the petitioner is entitted to reinstatement on the post after revocation of suqiension as also the paiyment of fult back wages and other consequenticl benefits after adjusting the amount of subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. No order as to costs. i'5cyu Sd/- . _ s'°*LTb°tn 3ud&e m