Chattisgarh High Court
Prem Prakash Srivastava vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6433 of 2017
• Prem Prakash Srivastava S/o Shri R.S.Srivastava, Aged About 52 Years R/o 52
Gajanand Puram, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Posted As Veterinary
Assistant Surgeon In The O/o Veterinary Hospital, Baradwar, District Janjgir,
P.S. Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary Mantralaya, New
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Secretary, Livestock Development Department New Secretariat, Mahanadi
Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Director, Veterinary Services, Directorate Indravati Bhawan, Block No.3
Ground Floor, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.
Order on Board
(25-07-2022)
1. The petitioner who is working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the
office of Veterinary Hospital, Bnaradwar, has been suspended on 17-4-
2022 (Annexure P/1), against which he has preferred an appeal before
respondent No.1 and subsequently the suspension order was revoked on
29-2-2016 wherein it has been stated that the suspension period will be
decided separately.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that other similarly
situated person working as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon who has been
suspended, filed Writ Appeal No. 139 of 2019 (Dr. Hitendra Kumar Soni
vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) before the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this court, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has
passed the following order:
"6. After having given a detailed hearing to the
counsel for the Appellant, having perused the
impugned order dated 02-01-2019 passed by
the learned Single Judge as also the
relevant Rules, all these submissions or
arguments in our opinion was unwarranted
and not required to be gone into.
7. A simple direction upon the Respondent
authorities was all that was needed
keeping in mind that the order dated
14.001.2016 which was an order of
revocation of suspension was not a
decision taken in relation to what is to be
done with the Petitioner in regard to his
service for the period of suspension. Since
the said order of 14-1-2016 by which
suspension was revoked was not a
decision with regard to how the period of
suspension is to be treated irrespective of
the arguments so made, noted which
became the reason for dismissal of the writ
application, appeal stands disposed off with
a direction upon the competent authority
that keeping mind that the order of
revocation of suspension was issued on 14-
01-2016 and almost more than 3 years
have elapsed, the competent authority will
have an obligation to take a decision as to
how they would like to treat the period of
suspension of the Petitioner".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no action on the
representation of the petition has been taken.
4. From the documents, it is evident that the period of suspension has
not been decided by the competent authority till today.
5. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the
matter of Dr. Hitendra Kumar Soni (supra), it is directed that
respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner
in the light of para 7 of the aforesaid judgment, within a period of 45
days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JUDGE
Raju
