• Lakhan Lal Kurrey S/o Shri Kala Ram Kurrey Aged About 35 Years Working v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:5504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 824 of 2025 • Lakhan Lal Kurrey S/o Shri Kala Ram Kurrey Aged About 35 Years Working As Patwari, At Office Of Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), R/o. C/o. Gautam Prasad Banjare, Ward No. 17, Jagannath Puram Colony, Railway Station Road Sakti, Tahsil And District Sakti, (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Commissioner Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Collector District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the appeal (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 06.09.2023 the Tahsildar Janjgir was submitted report before the respondent No. 4, and alleged that the petitioner who was posted as Patwari at that time at Khokhra, he has changed the nature of land as Government land to Agriculture Land through Patwari ID on 10.07.2023 as well as on 07.08.2023 in the Girdawari and entered the paddy crop and 3 on 17.08.2023 one Jagdish Kashyap resident of Village- Munund was through general power of attorney namely Shyam Lal resident of Village-Khokhra received the same and it was purchased by one Bhagirathi Kashyap and sold to the Ram Kumar Kashyap through Patwari ID, against the petitioner 5-6 allegation made that through the Patwari ID he violate the law, and same is act of irresponsible of duty and arbitrariness and its show the violation of Civil Service Rules 1966. But the reason mentioned in such suspension order is impossible and not acceptable in the eye of law. On 11.09.2023, the respondent No.4 issued a suspension order of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension and during the period of suspension, the Head Office of the petitioner would be Tahsil Office-Shivrinarayan, District-Janjgir-Champa. After completion of 90 days of suspension period when the petitioner's suspension was not revoked then the petitioner filed petition before this Hon’ble Court for revocation of his suspension and which is still pending without submitting the reply by the State since 22.1.2024 nor revoked suspension of the petitioner still without any extension order. The petitioner through RTI know that against him no any inquiry report has submitted nor any extension of suspension order has been passed till date. The petitioner earlier filed petition before this Hon'ble Court and 4 prayed to decide the pending appeal dated 18.10.2024 regarding suspension of the petitioner which has been dismissed and granted liberty to revive his prayer if the appeal is not decided within a period of 90 days by the appellate authority and even after lapse of 90 days the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) still not decided the petitioner's pending appeal dated 18.10.2024. It is submitted that the impugned suspension order has been passed by the respondent No. 4, who is not the disciplinary authority or appointing authority of the mentioned in such suspension order is impossible and not acceptable in the eye of law. On 11.09.2023, the respondent No. 4 issued a suspension order of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension and during the period of suspension, the Head Office of the petitioner would be Tahsil Office-Shivrinarayan, District-Janjgir-Champa. After completion of 90 days of suspension period when the petitioner's suspension was not revoked then the petitioner filed petition before this Hon’ble Court for revocation of his suspension and which is still pending without submitting the reply by the state since 22.1.2024 nor revoked suspension of the petitioner still without any extension order. The petitioner through RTI know that against him no any inquiry report has submitted nor any extension of suspension order has been passed till date. The petitioner earlier 5 filed petition before this Hon'ble Court and prayed for early decide the pending appeal dated 18.10.2024 regarding suspension of the petitioner which has been dismissed and granted liberty to revive his prayer if the appeal is not decided within a period of 90 days by the appellate authority and even after lapse of 90 days the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) still not decided the petitioner's pending appeal dated 18.10.2024. It is submitted that the impugned suspension order has been passed by the respondent No. 4, who is not the disciplinary authority or appointing authority of the petitioner, therefore the impugned order being passed in colourable exercise of powers and without any regular departmental enquiry, by the incompetent authority, therefore the petitioner has no alternative efficacious remedy, except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of suspension dated 11.09.2023 he has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh i.e. respondent No. 2 on 18.10.2024 but the same remains pending till date even after expiry of about more than 90 days as such he is seeking a direction that the Commissioner may be directed to decide his appeal within some stipulated period. 6 4. Learned counsel for the State are having no objection with such a reasonable prayer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh is directed to decide the appeal within a period of 30 days. 7. With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands
Decision
disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat