HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Petitioner WP (S). No.21 5812008 Varun Nagesh, S/o Kanwal Singh Nagesh, aged about 4O years. R/o (3-24, New Civil Line. Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus . '1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Chief Secretar D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Deputy Secretary, Mahiia Awam Bal / i Vikas Tatha Samaj Kaiyan Vibhag D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipui (CG) Writ Petition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus aqainst the respondents Presen: s. V.K. Sharma, counsel fo the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, eputy Advocate General for the State. (Passe on 2 Juiy, 2008) The petitioner is chalienging the charge sheet dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P-2), whereby an enqui for having committed financial irreularities has been proposed. The petitioner further challenges the validity of the impugned order ated 31 3.2008, whereby the petitioner‘has been attached with the Office of District Project Officer, Women and Child Welfare, District Dantewada (CG). (2) The only ground of challenge with regard to the charge sheet is that the charge sheet was issued after seven months from the date of suspension order. r\\ \ @Gnm-»’-2 ”a, . c srM Respondents y, t M r D ORAL ORDER d na ry g d (3) Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no charge sheet can be issued after a period of 90/days of SUSpenSiOn. (4) The contention of the Iearned counsel for the petitioner is noticed to be rejected on a simple ground that no law provides that charge sheet cannot be issued after a period of 90 days from the day of suspension. Ruie 9 (2) and, (5) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “rules") provides for revocation of suspension order if the charge sheet is not issued within a prescribed time. Bare perusal of Rule 9 (2) and (5) of the rules makes it clear that the competent authority cannot continue suspensionif the charge sheet is not issued within 45/90 days. (5) The second challenge is with regard to the impugned attachment order dated 31 3.2008 (Annexure P-l). (6) Shri Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that appropriate order shall be passed after considering the place of enquiry. (7) ln view of the fair submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the validity of the impugned attachment order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P-1). All other reliefs are incidental to the main reliefs,~as stated above. (8) The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court. Thus; the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotr‘ Judge 1. C21”; i ;