-?"•'?-fft \'&HM'^S ys'*' ia^.LU, c - r • lod IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fS) No. '3F /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: / !t ' fc./^'>•%'% l!^'^^-.. Tsl <( -~ ; '''^{. \ '••:. - lil: \\ A ^.. V^ffe'?1^ '."^ ^' Rfti ^,^ ^••^^- ^^My cw\y .••' «^' '.••"' ><>••' \';'"'- ..-•" 3. Udho Prasad Sharina, S/o Late Shri Samaran Prasad Sharina, aged about 57 years, R/o Quarter no. 645, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, DKS Bhawan, Mantralya, Raipur, (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) through its Managing Director, Hitwad Parisar Awanti Vihar, Telibhanda, Raipur C.G. General Manager, Administration Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Hitwad Parisar Awanti Vihar, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURTOF CHHATTIS8ARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justtee Pritinker Dhwaker) W.P.S.No.fi83Sof2011 Petitioner Udho Prasad Sharma VERSUS Respondent of Chhatttegarh & ottieis Present: Shri Sourabh Dangi, counsel for the petttloner. Shri Shashank Thakur, PL for the State/respondent No.1. Shri V.Ft. Tiwari, counsel for ttie respondents No.2 & 3 on advance copy. (21.11^011) The grievance of the petittoner is Uiat on 31.07.20W, he was suspended and thereafter on 12.11.20<%, l^uned Sesslons Gwirt framwt charge against him uncter Sedons 407 and 120-B <rf tPC but till date, the trial has not been concluded and as per Uie ctrcular issued by the General Admlnistration Departaent, susperKton order oughtto have been revoked. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submHs that the purposa of fillngthispetiConwoutdbeservedifadirectioiiisissuedto^respondent No.2 to decicte the pending representatton ofthe peBtioner (Annexure- P-5). 3. Learned counset for responctent No.2 submte that let the petitioner make a fresh drtalled representation to respondent No.2 and the same would be decided in accordance with law. 4. The present pefltion is accordingly disposed of. In the eventuality of fillng of any such representaton t^ the prttioner ifl^htn a period oftwo weete froin today,the same would be dedded by the respondent No.2 wfthln a further period of four weeks. S. It Is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinlon on the merite of the case and the authority concemed would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly In accprdance vrfth law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker - .Judge