BuT‘ORIZ IHL SEAEEJ AD1\!IL\’J.E>’T‘R’\TIV74‘ Thu; VAL J§BALPURa LO P5rw383 $ 03M Mo. /1 99hr a APPLICANT .. Rd). Parxdey, aged about 58 year‘s, Retired Deputy Collector, resident of Vinoba Hagar, Bilaspur, MaPa VERSUS RESPONDENTS n. ’I a otate of Liadhxn ~’r'ades:h, 1hrou§th ‘ Genera‘l Admin;— s’cratioq Departmenp, 5€€hé Vallabh Bhawan, Bhcpal, Md). Secretary, iilepartment of Persofmel Administrator Reforms 8< Training, Goxito of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawan, BhOpal, “ELF“ v! J“ Commissioner, Eepar‘cmental EnQUlr'y, Med ya Pradesh, tr” Vlndhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal, PL?” AWIEéEAITION UNDER SECTIom 19 OF THE ADMI qIsTx 1mm RIBIMALS ACT, 1985 F TA£L$ O4? J? E APPelVmIIN ‘Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP‘UR WRIT PETITION (S) No.983 of 2005 SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri H.B.\Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. 0 R D E R (Passed on 05"“ day ofNovember, 20 12) 1. This petition was initiallyii‘filed before the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, registered as O.A. No. 2279/1994, challenging the order dated 29.01.1993:(Annexure A/l 1) which was passed, pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the respondent authoritiesjerminating services of the petitioner. During the pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal (Annexure A/12) on 1003.1993 under/Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The instant petition, on carving out ofthe State of Chhattisgarh, was transferred to this High Court and was re—numbered as w.P.(S) No. 98372005. It is informed at the bar that the appellate authority i.e. the K Governor has already decided his appeal during the pendeney of this petition. In view of the above, this petition is not - maintainable as the impugned termination order has now PETITIONER : R.D.Pandey. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofMadhya i’radesh & Othem. :\ .7; I / 2 . 3 merged with the appellate order, which is not under chalienge in this petition. The petitioner cannot be allowed to avail two proceedings simultaneously, one before this Court and the other before the alternative statutory appellate authority, which has already been disposed of. In View of the abovez this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority in the appeal, if so advised. No order asto costs. Sdl- 3 Satish K. Agnihotri i Amit Judge