.y HIGHCOURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHR! SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLAhiT PETitlONER WRITAPPEALNo.112of2G07 - Dhruv Kumar Dubey (D.K. Dubey), Son Qf Shri R.G. Dubey, aged about 57 years, Resident of Old Sarkanda Shivghat, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^fersus 1. State of CHhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Pyblic Works Department, D.K.S. ' Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The ChiefEngineer, PublicWorks Department Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Superintending Engineer Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.1, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Inquiry Officer). 5. The Sub Divisional Officer.Pubtic Worte Department; Sub Division No.1, Bilaspur(C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH (APPEAL TO DIVISiON BENCH). ACT 2008 Present: Shri P.S. Koshy & ShriVinod Deshmukh,leamed counsei for the appeilant. Shri N. K. Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents, JUDGMENT ith The foltowing judgment of the Court was passed by . . 'mlVjs i' . • •. . . • . •/ . Learned counsel forthe partiesare heard on admission. ^ ^ 2. Appellant Dhruv Kumar Dubey has fiied this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 16-04-2007, passed in W.P.(S) No.2352/2007. 3. The appellant/petitioner flled the writ petition_for the following reliefs: "7.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus to quash the impugned suspension order dated 24.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) reinstating the petitioner in his service to the original place of posting with aJ! amenities. / 7.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to provide all the consequential benefits and the arrears of salary whatsoever is due to the petitioner from the date of suspension calling for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 7.3 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also be awarded with cost ofthe petition tothe petitioner." 4. The appellant, in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 24-11-2006 (Annexure P-1 inthewrit petition) impugned in the writ petltion whereby the appellant was placed under suspension on account ofthe pendency of a criminai case against him. 5. The iearned Single Jydge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behaif of the appellant/petitioner did not find any substance in the writ petition and therefore, passed the impugned order whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 6. As the appellant was placed under susperision on account of the pendency of a criminal ease, the pendency or the delay in " ~:-r .; l:T^4^5ii a conclusion of the departmentai enquiry against the appeilanVpetitioner, is not atall material so'far as the appellant's suspension is concerned. 7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellant's wit petition was dismissed. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha ^f Igiitii fairB'r!;i;1Ft<ElityKrii,»3!'-