JUDGMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J. - The present petition is against the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The petitioner claims to be complainant against respondent No.7, who was a Kotwar. On a complaint made that respondent no.7 being Kotwar has failed to discharge his job and did not follow the directions of the villagers and also Panchayat, as such, a resolution was passed that respondent no.7 be removed and in his place, new Kotwar be appointed. The further allegation is that that respondent no.7 has mortgaged 14 acres of Kotwari land and any question being asked to him threat is extended that the person would be inclupated in crime or he would be arrested. On different allegations, the complaint having been made the Tahsildar in exercise of the power u/s 230 of the Land Revenue Code of 1959 vide order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) had suspended respondent No.7. The said order was subject of appeal before the SDO. The SDO vide order dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure P-5) had set aside the order and directed to reinstate respondent No.7. The petitioner herein being one of the complainant had preferred appeal u/s 44(2) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur, by order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure P-6) allowed the appeal and held that the documents would reveal that respondent no.7 was suspended and set aside the order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the SDO and restored the original order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Tahsildar and further directed that the departmental enquiry be commenced against respondent No.7, Kotwar. The said order was further subject of revision before the Revenue Board, Bilaspur. The Revenue Board by order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) set aside the order of suspension dt. 19.12.2011 passed by the Tahsildar and the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Addl. Commissioner and with respect to the order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the SDO, the amendment was caused to the effect that instead of word "dismissal", it would be read as "suspension".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suspension order having been challenged by respondent no.7, no finality could have been attached and no departmental enquiry was commenced for the fault of respondent no.7, consequently the suspension continued. It is further submitted that the Order of Board of Revenue would be bad for the reason that despite the adverse finding was there, yet the departmental enquiry as was directed by the Addl. Commissioner was given a complete go-bye, consequently, respondent no.7 has not been allowed to join till date.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.7 would submit that respondent no.7 is holding a civil post, as such, there is a relationship of master and servant relation between the State and respondent No.7, consequently the suspension could not have been continued for the time immemorial. Referring to the case law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary, (2015) 7 SCC 291 learned counsel would submit that even if the suspension is made, it cannot be continued for a long indefinite period and respondent No.7 being the Civil Servant, the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 would be applicable. Counsel for respondent no.7 would submit that since no charge sheet was submitted, the suspension could not have been continued beyond the period of 90 days.

4. Learned State Counsel is unable to make any submission as the file is not available. Reply of the State is also not filed despite many opportunities granted to him.

5. Perused the impugned order. The documents show that initially on 19.12.2011 respondent no.7 who was a Kotwar was suspended in exercise of power under section 230 of the Land revenue Code. Sections 230 & 231 of the Land Revenue Code read as under:

"230. Appointment of Kotwars and their duties.-

(1) For each village or group of villages, there shall be appointed,