Rakesh Kumar Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3782 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2021


      Rakesh Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Bhikhu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 31
      years, (Suspended) Agriculture Extension Officer, Rural, Office of Sub
      Divisional Agriculture Office (Headquarter) Dhamtari, Post & District -
      Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                                     ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture
      Development and Farmers Welfare and Bio Agriculture Technology,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2.    The Directorate of Agriculture Sector-19, Krishi Vikas Bhawan, Naya
      Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
3.    The Additional Director of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, Krishi
      Vikas Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
4.    The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Post and District Dhamtari (C.G.)
5.    The Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
6.    The Station House Officer, Arjuni, P.S. - Arjuni, District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                                 ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

17.12.2021

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents.

2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 21.10.2021, whereby, the

learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of

pendency of an appeal before the State Government, which was filed on

16.07.2020.

3. The appellant is a Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and because of a

criminal case lodged against the appellant under Section 302, 450 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code, he was suspended by the respondent No. 4 on 18.05.2015.

4. The appellant had filed a representation dated 01.06.2020 before the

Director of Agriculture, who, vide order dated 08.07.2020, had rejected the

same and consequently, the appellant preferred an appeal before the State

Government on 16.07.2020.

4. Having regard to the factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that

ends of justice would be sub-served if a direction is issued to the appellate

authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant by a reasoned order

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

5. Order of the learned Single Judge is interfered with and is set aside. The

writ appeal is allowed as indicated above.

                                 Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                         (Arup Kumar Goswami)                     (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                             Chief Justice                               Judge

Brijmohan