'^ ^.^ ^sss^- ^.^' ...a.rf&^JI <-^'"^^^^>"" .< •^ <f^-; ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1%S^ / 2010 Petitioner Respondents L.N. Ram aged about 51 years, S/o Shat Ram, R/o Pariyojna Colony Raigarh Road, Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, D.K. 8. Bhawan , Raipur ^" 2. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department Raigarh ^ • 3. Joint Commissioner, Agriculture, Bilaspur WRIT PETLTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /£' ^'^ ^ ~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.1824 of 2010 Petitioner Respondent Versus L.N. Ram State of Chhattisgarh & others. Arun WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the suspension order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P/2) on the sole ground that 45 days have passed and no charge sheet has been issued. Thus, under the provisions of law, the suspensionorder stands revoked. 2. Contention of the petitioner is based on sub Rule 2-b of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1966. The said rule provides that if suspension order has been issued by the disciplinary authority, charge sheet has to be issued within a period of45 days but in the case onhand, order of suspension has been issued by the State Government, thus, the period of 45 days is extended to 90 days. 3. Itappears that without looking into the provision of law, the petition has been filed. The suspension order is clear and unambiguous as the same is issued by the State Government. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is frivolous and baseless. 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in this case and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge