/’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARII AT BILASPUR Writ Petition {S} N0. 217 011008 working 7 years, as Occupation-Govemment Senior Divisional AcaountS Servics, Officer, Prssantly FWD, Durg Division, Durg, District Durg (CG). RESPQNDENTS : 1. Comptrolier and Auditor Genera} of India, lO-Bahadur M Mandir Ward, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (CG) (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) PET! I. IONER ‘TJRSUS Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi-i 10002 2. The Accguntant General, Chhattisgarh 12/27 Raman Shn‘ Ashish STn‘ivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. No.1 Miss Shannila and 2. Singhai, Asstt. Solieitor ‘ Ganera] for ths respondent ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15E; ofJaimary, 2008) 1. The petitioner is working as Senior Divisional Accounts Gfficer in Public Works Department. Division No. I, Burg, Chhattisgarh. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the suspension order dated 20.12.2007, passed by the Accountant General (Annexure 13/4), has approached this court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of Indial The petitioner, being an employee of the Central Govenmlent, has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT‘) under provisions of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985., The petitioner, without approaehing to the CAT, has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of ihe Constitution of India. Learned .counsel submits thatrby the suspension order, as it is vague, the petitioner's iimdamental right as well as principle of natural justice has go “i w I been vioiated, as no notice was given tome petitioner befere passing of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of LK. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and Another [(2006) 2 SGC}, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction ofjudieial review inter alia in cases Where the court or the tribunai lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been violation of at principal of natural justice or where vires of the Aet is in question. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of LK. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and Another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the ease, as CAT has especially been constituted to look into service disputes of the civil servants of Central Government. So far as the violation of the hindamental right and principle of natural justice is concerned, it is not necessary to examine at this stage. There is no challenge of Vires ofthe Act. In view of the foregoing, particularly in View of the statutory remedy i.e. availability of CAT which has especially been constituted for redressal of grievances of the employees in service matters, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order asto costs. i Satish K. Agnihntri r i Sdl‘ y i i ‘ Judge Sahu