Narendra Kumar Verma v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2483 of 2019 Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Shiv Kumar Verma Aged About 30 Years Presently Posted In The Office Of Assistant Engineer, Bhatapara, Zone, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bhatapara, R/o Naya Ganj Ward, Kalyan Sagar, Near The Pond, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate For State :

Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/04/2019 1.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 22.01.2019 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 2.

The primary grievance of the petitioner assailing the same is that on one hand he has been suspended without granting any opportunity of hearing and at the same time, on being suspended he has been attached to the office of Executive Officer that would amount to transferring the petitioner immediately on his suspension.

3.

At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that since the order of suspension is not a punishment, neither is the attachment of the petitioner to the office of the Executive Engineer, a transfer but the order is only an administrative order of placing the petitioner under attachment during suspension, this Court hardly is left with any scope of interference. Moreover, this Court is of

-2the opinion that the impugned order is an appealable order and the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal against the impugned order, rather than rushing to this Court.

4.

Reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable, the same stands rejected. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved