XI—HC~22 a Wm mmw?mrm ”(gm W WW wW €5mm B¢for¢ fho Divisian Bunch: Hon. Shri KHN Kuranga. CJ mil! Hon shriL‘ChBhadoo‘, J 28.6.2003: $m1'. Renu Kochnr counsel fov ‘rhe pe'ritioner. 1: Ms. Shafmila Singhai, Dy. GA for marespondenf. Haard bo‘rh fhe counsel. ’ By ‘this wrif pé+i1*ion file under Arficles 226/227 of 1he Consi'i'rufion of India The pe‘ri‘rio r" seeks *0 chalienge fhe order dufed 13.12.2w0 passed by the A ministmfive TribunaL Bench Raipur in O.A. Nol329/2000 by which e Tribunal dismissed +he Original applica'l'ion filed by ‘I’he pe‘ri'rioner h .rein. We have heard fine learned counsel for bofh inc pin-fies and perused fhe material before u‘s. a The only grievance of ‘rhe learned counsel for the pefi'rioner is The? 1he petitioner was volun‘la’rily retired wi‘rh effect from 31.1.2000 and theEfm-e there was nowoceasion for the Competen‘l' An’thorify To s suspend the petitioner from 15.2.2000 ond‘as such the order was‘bad. According to the counsel this ct has not been considered by the Tribunal. On the other hand lear counsei for the respondent/State ,u 1/ § TV XI—HC<22 wars? m W L» (...g.f \2 m I mm mm mm mammafza WW1§1¢§€TW $Wm ’— l, submiffed ‘I'haf fhe volurrrary retiremen'r of flue pe-rmoner was Lg K acoep‘red only on 10.5.2000 wi'rh effect from me back dafe Le. XV 31.1.2000 and in befween before 'rhe nccephnoe of ‘rhe voiun'rary refirenmnf on 10.5.2000, ‘H'Iz p¢fifioner was suspendad‘ by‘order dafed 15.2.2000. So ‘rhe suspension order was passea‘pyrior To me aooep'fanaa of fhe volun'tnry ntirsmen'l' of fhe pafitionar. As- such ' ,‘H‘Iere was no irregulari‘ry or in‘ir'mi'ty in The orden of suspension passed against The petitioner. A perusal of paragraph 14 M fhe impugned order passed by 'rhe Tribunal reveals 1ha‘r +he confen 'on of The iearned counsel for 1he respondent/State is correcf be se if shows fhaf fhe volunfary refiremenf of The petitioner was coepfed on 10.5.2000, 'rhough if was To fake effect refrospec‘rively i.e w.e.f 30.1.2000 and in between The T suspension order was passedogain him. Counsel for both the s admif fhaf fhe petitioner herein before the Authority the preferred an appeal before Competent against suspensign order passed against the petitioner and the same is still pending. '[qiséfw ‘ XLHc—zz aw m ~ g- .7 MW‘M W 200‘ E a; Mmmafga ‘ V ”E 3W3$£f§ t 3““ In view of The fac‘r 1ha'r‘whend'he appea! of 1he peti‘rioner filed before The compaem' authorifr agains'r ‘rhe suspension okder dated 15.2.2000 is still pending and a1 foo when ‘rhe Tribunul has given liberty +0 the pe‘l'ifioner to ove the fresh pefifion affer fhe dismissal of his upped, The pe‘ri1ioner was not wi‘lhin hisfighf To move fhis Court ’ affer \ Affer hearing counsel‘fo - 'rhe parties and going fhrough fhe material before us, we are of the opinion that thiswrit petition Accordingly, hos nosubstanoe and the some is‘liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismsisedjj; x \ i gfs—I: ’ S‘il-l_ v 7 ' L.c.BHADoo Sdl- ‘ x ' ,,\€i\ie£ Juamm ix ‘ agdge v m 7 h ‘