<2S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHR8 RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUP^.AR SINHA, J. WritADDeal No.347 of 2009 ADpelSant Petitioner Respondents P»NN»NB? c::: Dwarika Prasad Suryawanshi, aged - 52 years, S/o Late Praja Ram Suryawanshi, Junior Assistant (Removed) At - Dlstrict OfHce, CG State Clvii Suppiies Corporation, Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa CG R/o Jarhabhatha, Mandir Chowk BiSaspur, DIstrict - BIjaspur (CG) VERSUS CG State Civil Suppties Corporation Limited, Raipur Through - The Managing Director, Bal Ashram Campus, Kucher/ Chowk, Ralpur (CG) The Managing Director, CG State Civit Suppiies Corporatlon Limited, Raipur, (CG) Shri MN Prasadrao,General Manager/ Enquiry Offlcer CG State CJvt! Suppjies Corporatlon Limlted, Raipur, Bal Ashram Campus, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur (CG) Writ ADpeaS under Section 2 flVof hte Chhattjsaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Divlsion Bench) Act, 2GGB Present : Shri RK Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri VR Tiwari, counsei forthe respondents. Judament »nd (2na February, 201Q) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^, ^ ^s Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant Dwarika Prasad Suryawanshi has fiied this writ appeai against the impugned order dated 05.11.2009, passed in WPS No.2953/2009. 3) The appeliant / petltioner in the writ petition was seeking quashing of the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by respondent No.2 Director of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur, whereby the appeiiant / petitioner was removed from servjce. 4) Learned Single Judge, hoiding that the appellant / petitioner had efficacious alternative statutory remedy of fiiing an appeal against the order of his removal from service under Ruie 24 of the Chhattisgarh State CiviS Suppiies Corporation Limited (Class I, II, II! & IV) Servlce Recruitment and Promotion Ruies, 2005, deciined to entertain the writ petition and the same was dismissed vide Impugned order dated 05.11 .2009. 5) Shri RK Kesharwanl, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the order of petitioner's removai from service was passed by respondent No.2 after holding a departmental enqulry. 11 is also not in dispute that the appellant has an aiternative efflcacjous statutory remedy of fiiing an appeal against the impugned order dated 26.05.2009 impugned in the writ petition. 6) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the partles, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order padma 27 [ passed by the iearned Single Judae which may warrant interference in this intra Coi//fappeal. 7) The writappeal, therefore, is iiable to be dismlssed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge dsr