HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNiL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT/ PETJTIONER RESPONDENTS Writ AppeaJ No.146 of 2008 Varun Nagesh S/o Kanwal Sjngh Nagesh, aged about 40 years, R/o G-24, New Civil Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Chief Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2; Deputy Secretary, Mahila Awam Ba! Vikas Tatha Samaj Kaiyan Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (C.G.) Writ AppeaJ Under Section 2(11 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Dlvision Bench^ Act. 2008 Present: Shri VK Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Klshore Bhaduri, Additiona! Advocate Genera! for the State / respondents. Judgment (28th July, 2008) The foliowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admlssion. 2) Appellant - Varun Nagesh has fiied this writ appeai against the impugned order dated 2 Ju!y, 2008 passed In Writ Petition(S)No.2158/2008. 3) Appeiiant -Varun Nagesh was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmentai enquiry against him. ^-^S^ ^ 4) The petitjoner cjaiming that charge sheet was not Issued to him withi'n a period of 90 days of passing of the order of his suspension; had eariier fjled a Writ Petition (S)No. 1853/2008, which was dlsposed of vide order dated 28th March, 2008 whereby respondent No.2 was directed to consider the appjication of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order after verificatjon of facts in accordance with Sub-RuSe 5 of Rule 9 of 1966 Ruies. 5) After passlng of the above order dated 28th March, 2008; the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure P/1) and the petltioner was attached with the Offlce of District Project Officer, Women and Chiid Welfare, DJstrict Dantewada (CG). 6) The petitloner then, fiied another writ petition i.e. VVP(S) 2158/2008 seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the order of his attachment dated 31.03.2008. 7) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the contentions advanced on behaif of the petitioner, did not find any ground for grant of any of the above reliefs sought by the petltjoner and therefore, passed the impugned order dated 2 July, 2008, whereby the petitioner's/appeJlant's writ petition was dismissed. 8) Shri VK Sharma, learned counsei for the appeilant vehementiy argued that learned Sing!e Judge has erred Sn not giving due weight to the fact that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after a period of about seven months of the passing of the order of hls suspension; and that the petitioner has been attached .^'^ ^3^^ ti with the Office at Dantewada, which js situated at a distance of 350 km from his present place of posting at Rajnandgaon. 9) The charge sheet can not be quashed mereiy because It was issued after a period of seven months of the passlng of the order of suspension. Learned counsei for the appellant couid not point out any other valid ground, which may warrant interference at this stage. 10) So far the appeilant's attachment with the Office of District Project Officer, Women and Chiid Welfare, District Dantevvada (CG) is concerned, it is for the empjoyer / State Government to consider and decide as to where a government servant during the pendency of the departmental enquiry / suspension shouid be attached. If the authorities on due consideration of ail the reievant aspects of the matter have found it expedient to attach the appeliant with the Office of District Project Officer, Women and Child Welfare, District Dantewada(CG), there is hardiy any scope for interference by the High Court in a writ petition. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ appeai, therefore,is liabSe to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.- padma Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge