^ a BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETmON (SINO. 2^3 3 / 2011 PETITIONER ^. ^8r^ //. ."'< i^lEf ^. ^35 !&H»as'[B.i.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^f^- ^ii^' ^yy:' ! 1. y 2. ^ 3. G.R. Baghel, S/o. Laxman Sirigh Baghel, , aged abQut 59 years, presently attached with District Office,Kanker(C.G.) "State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - ; Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) The Gommissibner, Raipur Divisidh, Raipur (G.G.) The CpUeetpr, Ma.hasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTIONOPINDIA 1 PARTICULARS OF THE raynnONERISl As mentioned in the cause title. 2 I>ARnCULARSOiFl*HERESPONDENT(St As mentioned above ih the cause title. 3. PARTICULARSOFTHECAUSE/ORDERAGAINST WmCH^raiEreTTnONINMADE. The challenge in the instant petition is to the illegal Suspension of the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended vide order df. 11.10.2010, despite the HIGHCOURT.©PCI-ll-fAT1-ISC3ARI-l:BII..ASPUR w^^ RETITIONER '•'' ••:.;;: : •y"(3.;R.Baghel,.'^. ^: •; ; .' • . :: ., ' ;:VerSus •-" .:': ; '::':' :• ,. ::;• ;^, • '::^ RESPONDENTSStateofCtihattisaarh&Others ^ (WritPetitioh yn(:lerArtic|e226oftheC6rtstitutipnoflndja) SingteBencH:Hon'bleShriSatishK.Agnihotri,J.— Presenf:- Ms Nayshina Ali, Advocate forthe petitidher. ShriA.V.Sndhar.PanelLawyerfortHeState. .;:^.;:^'©BDERI[QRAL1:;;:-:1:;.:::'.::''; '. •: •: ••1 ' (Rassecl on this 1st day of.February; 2011) 1. Hearelleamed^counsSlfortheparties,^^^ 2. By^this petition, tlieipetitibnerseeksrevocatipri;ofthesyspension orderciated 11-10-201a (Ahnexure-P/3)passedbythe respondent authorities. 3. Case of thie petitioner is ;that while he was posted a&TahSildar, VPithOira, e Collector, Mahasamund^^^ ^petitiorffiF 0 ^ On^lie?b^Sise<yfithe^nquiiy.repQH,ffi^ totheSecret^.toithe©&vemtTientcrfCtihattisgarh,.Dep^ Revenue^byrnemodated 27-4^010 (Annexyre—^ diseipljnaryaction againstthe Retitioner. 4. Against the said memo, the petitioner preferred a revision petjtion befer^tMe Board of Revehue. The Boarcl 6f dated 12-5^01®(/\nnexure—P^stayedtMeeffeyandopera^ crf the memo dated;27^201^ In spite 6f operation of the s^ order in favour crf the petitioner, the petitioner was plaeed^^W Suspensionbyorderdated 11-10-2010 (Annexure-P/3)underth& provisions of Ryle 9 (1) ^ (ClassjfiGation/ Control and Appeal) Ryles, 1866 (for short "the ,Rules,1806")."'l:.!' ,: ••r. :.: !: .- ^ ; 1 :: .-: .', ': .'.' n3=s&aK£3Kd»'-a^i Gowri 8. 9. ^ Thereafter, morethan 90 day? have passed before issue ofcHarge sheet and, as such, under the provisions of Rule 9 (5) of the Rules, 1966thesuspehsionorderstandsrevoked. Ms. Naushina, learried counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies on a decision of this Court m Ashok Kumar Bhosley-v. Stateof Ch^ffisgart & offtere, wherein this C^urt held that "howev serjous charge may be.ifthe petitioner is not seh/ed charge-sheet within the limitation period prescribed under the provisions of Rule 9 (2-a) of the Rules, 1966, the suspension orderstands revoked automatically." Shri Sridhar, learned Panel LaWyer appeanng for the State.submits that so far aslegal prQvision is cpncerned, there is nodispute and if no charge sheet has been issued within aperiod of 45/90 days, as -*•• the case may be, itstands revoked. Thus, the petitionerought not to have corrie to this Court seeking revocation of the suspension order, as it isthe case of automatic revocation. In view offoregoing and having cbnsidered allthefaets involved in theease,withQutexpressinganyopinionohthemeritsofthecase, the impughed suspensibn brder dated 11-10-2010 (Annexure - P/3) is quashed, on the ground that no charge-sheet has been issued within 90 days from the d^te ofthesuspension order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.No orderastocosts. .-——— • ~ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 12008(3)MPHt88.(CG)