COURT OF AT DB: Hon'bSe.ShrlSunJJ KymarSinha,& Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. (Petrtjoners) ^ Resi5QO<?enSs I. Harshvardhan Tarak, son of Shri Patlram Tarak, aged about 26 years, Rozgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Jawaibandha, Deveiopment Block Abhanpur, distrid Raipur (CG) 2. Ashok Kumar Sahu, son of Shri Vishnu Sahu, aged about 45 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jawaibandha, Deveiopment E5!ock Abhanpur, Distrid Rai'pur (CG) Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretan/, Department of Panchayat and Ruraf Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. The ColIector-cum-District Program Coordinator; Mahatma Gandhi Natlonal Rural Employment Guarantee Raipur. 3. The Sub Divisionai Officer, Aarang, Abhanpur (CG) 4. Janpad Panchayat Abhanpur, through its Chlef Executive Officer. 5. Lokpai, an Independent enquir)' agency under- the Mahatma Gandhi Nationai Rurai Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Lokpai Office, Ralpur. 6. The Commissioner, ^4ahatm^ Gandhi Natlona! Rural Employment Guarantee, Commissionsr Office, Rajpur (CG) ,^,;55^ s ''^m^ i: 1 •^•—^•^ ,^ ^-^ W.A.No.486/2011 ,^ Present: Shri DInesh KR Tiwari, counsel for the appellants, Shrl AS Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate Genera! for ths State/ respondents 1 to 3, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (21.10.2011.) Heard on admisslon. 2. The appeilants have fl!ed thls e.ppeai chgitenging the order 30th September, 2011 passed in V^.P.(C) No. 5968/2011 by the leamed Single Judge ofthls Court. 3. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appeliants has been dismissed by the writ Court holding it to be premature. 4. AppeSlant No.1 is Rozgar Sahayak and appellant No.2 is Sarpach of Gram Panchayat. !t appears that on certain compialnt, concerned Lokpal conducted an en.quiry against the appeilantsand made recommendation for taking appropriate steps against them. Tha Lokpa! has passed the av^ard after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants. As an effect of the award passed by the Lokpai, concemed Sub Diyislonal Officer has issued notice under Section 40 of Panchayat Ra] Adhinlyam, 1993 to appeilant No.2 to shov/cause as to why he should not be suspended and proceedings under the said Sectlon may not be initiated, The writ Court held that appeEiant No,2, without replying to the notlce issued by the Sub DivisionaE Officer, rushed to the writ Court for quashing of the award, etc., w'hich was not proper and the v/rlt petltion filed by the appeiiants was premature. ^^,,:llg^ ^ '.^^^\ ;;' ^^:. '^;';- f;5^ ^ ^.yy' W.A.No.486/2011 Admittediy, the award passed by the Lokpai Is recommendator/. The Lokpai has oniy recommended to take appropriate action against the appellants, but no action has been taksn agalnst them tiJi date. 6. in vlew of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinlon that the writ Court has taken a correct viev^ that the writ petition fi!ed by the appeliants, at this stage, was premature. 7, For the t'Qregolng reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal, whlch is Jlabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Bini