The main legal point established is that for the suspension of an officer specified in Section 94(4) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, previous approval of the State Government under Section 94(5) is necessary for a suspension exceeding one month.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27-8-2021 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No.4 under Rule 53(1) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1968’).

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer by Nagar Panchayat, Jarhi by order dated 3-8-2010 and thereafter, the State Government by order dated 12-3-2018, transferred her services to Municipal Council, Surajpur, where she is presently working and by the impugned order, she has been placed under suspension alleging certain misconducts which has been sought to be challenged by filing this writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is working as Sub-Engineer in Municipal Council, Surajpur and she is an officer specified in Section 94(4) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’) and her appointment has been confirmed by the State Government and therefore her suspension cannot be made without previous approval of the State Government under Section 94(5) of the Act of 1961. As such, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be set aside.

4. Return has been filed by the State/respondents No.1 to 3 stating inter alia that though the petitioner has been suspended, but the order of suspension has not been approved by the State Government and it has been rejected by the order of the Joint Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, dated 2-2-2022, as such, the impugned order of suspension is without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

5. Respondent No.4 has filed separate return stating inter alia that on account of serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, she has been placed under suspension, as Municipal Council, Surajpur has jurisdiction to place her under suspension under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1968 and impose major penalty, and imposed major penalty.

6. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is an officer specified in Section 94(4) of the Act of 1961 and therefore by virtue of Section 94(5) of the Act of 1961, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension for more than one month without previous approval of the State Government. He would further submit that the State Government has categorically stated that the suspension order of the petitioner has not been approved by the State Government vide order Annexure R-1/1 and approval is required as per the circular Annexure P-3 dated 26-12-1996 and respondent No.4 being the borrowing authority has no competence and jurisdiction to place her under suspension, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3, would submit that by virtue of Section 94(7) of the Act of 1961, the State Government has jurisdiction to transfer any officer or servant of one Municipal Council to another Municipal Council mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 94 which includes Sub-Engineer also and therefore the transfer has rightly been made, but by virtue of Section 94(5) before placing the petitioner under suspension, previous approval of the State Government would be required and unless prior approval is granted, the impugned order would not be valid though by drawing the analogy of Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1966’), Sub-Engineer can be placed under suspension by respondent No.4, but previous approval of suspension would be necessary as by virtue of Section 94(7) of the Act of 1961, Sub-Engineer of one Municipal Council transferred to another Municipal Council will be treated to be on deemed deputation to the Municipal Council where he has been transferred. He would further submit that Section 94(5) of the Act of 1961 would be required to b