Disposed

Sudhir Tirkey v. the Chairman

Chhattisgarh HC10 Oct 2022WPS/6248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition at the motion stage, directing the respondent Chairman to decide the petitioner's pending review application under Rule 29 of the Civil Services Rules, 1966 within 30 days due to non-decision over six months.

What did the court decide?

Response No.1 directed to consider and decide the petitioner's review application under Rule 29 of the Rules of 1966 within 30 days.

Sudhir Tirkey Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 6248 of 2022

¶5

Sudhir Tirkey S/o Late Shri Antoni Tirkey Aged About 47 Years Assistant Engineer Office Of Executive Engineer (O And M), Dn C.S.P.D.C.L. District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Chairman Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

The General Manager (H R) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate

¶13

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

10/10/2022

Heard.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner at this stage is in respect to nondeciding the review application filed by the petitioner under Rule 29 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules of 1966”), even after lapse of more than 6 months.

¶18

-2-

¶19

Copy of endorsement made in writ petition would show that the standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 refused to accept the advance copy of the petition.

¶20

As learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a limited direction to respondent No.1 to decide pending review application of the petitioner, I find it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the motion stage itself.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that making allegation of commission of certain irregularities while discharging of the official duties by the petitioner, charge sheet has been issued and departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. After conclusion of departmental inquiry, petitioner was found guilty and order of major punishment has been passed against him vide order dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure P-2), against which, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before respondent No.2 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner aggrieved by dismissal of appeal, has preferred review application before respondent No.1 on 08.03.2022 vide Annexure P-5. Contention of learned for the petitioner is that this review application is not decided and is still pending before respondent No.1 for about last 6 months.

¶22

In the aforementioned facts of the case when the petitioner has

¶23

-3-

¶24

submitted review application against an order of dismissal of his departmental appeal, affirming order of punishment, which is pending consideration before respondent No.1, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing respondent No.1 to dispose of review application within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by this Court.

¶25

Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Rules of 1966, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/-------/--/-

¶28

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶29

Praveen

Sudhir Tirkey v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Tirkey v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mevalal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. G. R. Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanju Kumar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balkrishna Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh