;E4 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4—GS5’ OF 2004 PETITIONER /V Shiv Kumar Yadav, S/o. late Shri Kapurchand Yadav, Aged about 4O years, Occupation—Ex-service man, R/o. Gandhinagar, P.S. 8r Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / The Commercial Tax Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Raipur (C.G.) ‘\ The Divisional Commissioner, $\\{\ Commercial Tax. Department, ....: .....2“£7A/ Office ~ Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Sales Tax Officer, S.T.Office (Surguia Circle) Ambikapur (C.G.) 4. Commercial Tax Officer, (Surguja Circle) Ambikapur (C.G.) ‘5. The Collector, District Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION l. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. (Wk v XI-HC~—7 8 @ Shri A.K.$hukla, Counse! for The pe‘l’i‘rioner. Heard on admission. The pe‘rifioner' has called in ques‘rion 1'he iegali‘ry, validi‘ry and‘ propriefy of order dafed 2.6.2004 (Annexure P-11) by which The pefi‘l'ioner has been removed from fhe services as he was working on 'H'Ie pos‘r of Sweeper in The Sales Tax Depar‘ nf,‘Ambikapur. On perusal of The reco d, i‘r Transpires fha‘r The pefifioner remained absen‘r from his du1’y nd for Thisfa show cause nofice was issued 1'0 fhe pefi‘rioner by The c ncerned auThorify. The peti‘fioner has filed reply 1'0 The said shoni cau’ e notice and 'fhereaf‘l’er The concerned aufhori'ry passed ‘l'he impugned o der on 2.6.2004 and removed him from The services. On going Through impugned order, iT shows ThaT in fac? The peTiTioner was working as Kar abhariT Karmachari. Learned counsel for The pe iTioner does noT dispuTe This facT. IT is broughT To The noTic of This CourT ThaT The services of The like The Madhya persons The peTiTionen are governed by PmdeshfghhaTTisgarh)/K/ryabhar'T AaksmikaTa Seva Karmachari Niyam, 1970. Learned Counsel for The pe iTioner submiTs ThaT The penalTies have been described vide Rule 1’3 d The penalTy imposed agaiw,” aJ/ r e e o W9Qé5‘5— WW W 200% WQSJW (Wm mam;w mmfw V ““mm wmw?wm‘ m mmm 10,2.2005 ‘i @i 290 aw:W (Em) wamwwca a3§é$§m€a$e§ wwmy \ _, 7—- { mawamwwwm aqamem (Wm “5.x?“ E pe‘ri‘rioner will bé covered under lause 7 of Rule 13‘ Rule 15 deals wi'rh fhe provisions of appeal in whic if is provided Tha'r fhe orders passed under Rule 13 excep‘r under clou s 1 & 2 of The aforesaid rules, would be appealable under 'rhis provision. L” In iieu of fhis, learned counsel for fhe peTiTioner submi‘ts Tho? fhis V {,orderl’is ankappealable order. However, The appeal has nof been filed by fhe pel’i‘l‘ioner agains‘l' ‘rhe impugned order, The pe1'i1'ioner has direc‘l‘ly 'approached'f‘ror fhis Court AT This stage, learned CoiJnsel for ‘rhe petitionervl'iiakes a prayer fha‘r fhis pefifion be disposed of wifh a liber‘ry To The3ipeTiTioner To file an appeal under The rules before appropriaTe auThoriTy. I The learned prayer of counsel for The peTiTioner seems To be reasonable. I l In view of The prevailing ‘facTs and circumsTances, This peTiTion is disposed of wiTh liberTy To The peTiTioner To file an appeal before The appropriaTe auThoriTy in accordame wiTh The rules. CerTified as rules. W copy per // sm- l Sinha sunil Kumar ' Judge 1