QS RESPONDENTS .••^^ .^^s"' v'l.^' ^ •>•' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETmON N0. J-05 •2—/ 2003. PETITIONER : Sailash Nath Sahu s/o Shri Kamdev Sahu aged 35 years ,0ccupation Part Time Sweeper in Veterinary Department, r/o Alebelapara ,Kanker, Distt. Kanker ,Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, , Department ofVeterinary Services ,D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur ,C.G. 2. The Colleetor Kanker, Kanker,Chhattisgarh c, 3. TheDirector, Veterinary Services, G.E. Road, Raipur,C.G. 4. The Deputy Director , Veterinary Services, Albelapara ,Civil Line Kanker,Distt. Kanker, C.G. 5. The Cl'fief Executive ^ .^ O^er, Jila PancUyat ^^ ^Kanker ,Beside kutchery, ^»\V' /Distt.Kanker ,Chhattisgarh 1 t b ''•CWRITPETm:ONUNDERAKTICLE22<fe270FTHECONST[TUTIo5! INB&| . ^' PORISSUANGEOFAWRH'INTHEi/ATUREdFMANDAMUS. PRdEflSrTIQAi (-V r~vDTTr\v A®TA'iur> AMV nruBO •nyDrTC nTDcr'TTnMC riD npncD^" '—~ —^ ^> ^^y CERTIORA&IANKANY OTHERWRrTS.DIRECTIONSORORDERS[ 1;:M :sa-HC-22 aii^r^i ft^SIRRt '^?f^ WQ^. !»».':.° a 's^l -^ww^, »A*i'is,f<«f[«y /31 ^;..e...^....!°y/^% sn^T^eiiwgfe thk 07/05/2004 Shri Satyendra Sahut Shri Satish Gupta^ State/respondents no. 1 to| Shri Prateek Sinlia, The petitioner has ^ 236/227 of tbe Constituti<| 19/02/2003 passcd by Kaakcr, District Kanker (A| notice was issued to ttie The case of tbe 04/11/1999 by respond^ Vcterinaiy hospitals of Pur^ C.G on monthlv basis anc] no,4 issued show cause siucerity, devotion and years as such he was expe< lctter froin respondcnt no.4| was drawiag salary of Rs. respondent no.4 terminateil dated 04/03/2003. sacae was not considered. Counscl for thc pctidij the petitioner may be a ateitt "cbl4J?t4lTt ^-ll*f^t"?.'fe^ <.Pn-^cK ^•3iPOT3!I^f for the pefitioner p^trtloner counsel for the petitioner. Deputy G6vt. Advocate K. cfouiisel for respondent no,5, |referred this writ petition under Article >n of India questioniag the order dated Dcputy Dircctor, Vcterinary Services, AEruiexure P/1) whereby the show cause for terminatmg his services. is that he was appointed on int no.4 aa Part Time Sweeper ia Block Officc Charama, Distorict Kaukcr thereafteron 19/02/2003 respondent jnotice. Petitioner was working with and he has worked inore than four |ting regu]arization. He also received a [on 23/07/2002 (Armcxure P/3) and he ,p41/- per month. However, later on, the semces of petittoner vide order niade a representation, but the hotiest Petitioner ^ncr subniits fhat ia the circuinstanccs, ipowed to xaake a representatioa to </\A-tlL--. 's^ -^WWi, •s'Aww, hwwy. wwir «w9> ar^r^i WW S!^f SCTwgflg r)!lf:; <}!^"'^ l learfeed B& respondent no.4 for leamed counsel for the Haviag heard regard to fhe facts and atlowed to make a detailefl to respondent no.4 withi^i him respondent no. 4 pciiod ofthirty days fron^ considermg aU the objective inanaer by law. Wifh the aforesaid stands disposed of, Consequently, M.W[ also stend disposed of. Certified copy as pe|r Rules. ccjiisidering his representation to which ic^pondents have no objection, counscl Tor the parties aad haviag c^rcumstances of tbe case, fhe petitioner te representation raisuig aU his gnevaaces a period of ten days finin today and ia ^haU decjde the repi^sentation within a the date of reccipt of the representation raised by the petitioner ia an LS^iag a reasoned order iu accordance with gne^ances pasqm *14ffl4-f •qPRff •? 1%IA -(fsn?R ^3fStIH3II^T observations and directions fhe petition P.No. 3043/2003 and I.A.No. 730/2004 sa/- L.C.