Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar, son of Dr. R.L. Deo – Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education Department -Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No.9074, 9088, 9251, 9172 of 2023
Decided on : 14-12-2023
Suspension - Extension of Suspension Orders - Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) - Smt. Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Appeal No.456 of 2022 - Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - [21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were government officials, were suspended following complaints and subsequent preliminary inquiries. They challenged the extension of their suspension orders beyond 90 days, citing Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Smt. Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Appeal No.456 of 2022. The respondents argued that the charge-sheets were served within 90 days and the extension of suspension was valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court interpreted the directions in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and held that the extension of suspension must be passed within 90 days of the suspension. As the extension orders were issued after 90 days, the suspension orders and their extensions were quashed, and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated.
Issues: The main issue was whether the extension of suspension orders beyond 90 days was valid, and the maintainability of the second petition filed by one of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the extension of suspension must be within 90 days of the suspension, as directed in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). It also clarified the maintainability of the second petition based on the grounds raised in the earlier petition.
Final Decision: All four writ petitions were allowed, quashing the suspension and extension orders and directing the reinstatement of the petitioners.
ORDER :
1. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. Since a common issue is involved in all the present four writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. In Writ Petitions (S) No.9074 of 2023, 9088 of 2023 and 9251 of 2023 the respective Petitioners have assailed the order of their suspension dated 1.8.2023 and in Writ Petition (S) No.9182 of 2023 the Petitioner has assailed the order of his suspension dated 19.7.2023 on the ground that even after completion of 90 days of their suspension no order of extension of their suspension has been passed by the Respondent/competent authority and suspension of the Petitioners have not been revoked.
4. Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioners in Writ Petitions (S) No.9074 of 2023, 9088 of 2023, 9251 of 2023 and 9182 of 2023 were posted as Joint Director (Education), Raipur, Incharge Divisional Joint Director (Education), Durg, Incharge Joint Director (Education), Surguja and Incharge Divisional Joint Director (Education), Bilaspur, respectively. The Assistant Teachers and the Teachers were promoted to the post of Teachers/Head Masters. After issuance of their posting orders, the concerned promotees, i.e., Teachers/Head Masters made applications for modification of their posting orders. The Petitioners herein also received various proposals for modification of the places of posting of the Teachers/Head Masters from Members of Legislative Assembly, Ministers, Joint Director (Public Instructions) and Leader of Opposition. Pursuant to the above proposals and the applications submitted by the Teachers/Head Masters, the Petitioners herein issued amended posting orders of the Teachers/Head Masters. After issuance of the amended posting orders, complaints were filed before the Secretary and higher authorities. On the basis of the said complaints, question was also raised during assembly meeting. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaints and the report of preliminary inquiry made on the said complaints, the Petitioners in Writ Petitions (S) No.9074 of 2023, 9088 of 2023 and 9251 of 2023 have been suspended vide order dated 1.8.2023 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition (S) No.9182 of 2023 has been suspended vide order dated 19.7.2023. After issuance of their suspension orders, separate charge-sheets were issued against all the Petitioners on 15.9.2023. Even after completion of 90 days of their suspension, when no order of extension of suspension has been issued against the Petitioners, they filed the instant writ petitions on 20.11.2023 and after filing of the instant petitions the Respondent/State issued the order of extension of suspension of the Petitioners on 22.11.2023.
5. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that though the charge-sheets have been issued to the Petitioners within 90 days of their suspension, no order of extension of their suspension has been issued by the Respondent/State within 90 days of their suspension as mandated by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary, (2015) 7 SCC 291. He further submits that the Respondent/State, after filing of the instant writ petitions, passed the order of extension of suspension of the Petitioners on 22.11.2023, i.e., after 90 days of their suspension. Therefore, in the light of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and the judgment dated 9.9.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Manisha Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Appeal No.456 of 2022, the Petitioners are entitled to get revocation of their suspension order.
6. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State, opposing the arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners, submits that there is no mandate given by the Supreme Court as relied on and argued by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners regarding issuance of order of extension of suspension. He further submi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of suspension orders must be passed within 90 days of the suspension, as directed by Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
Suspension valid if reviewed within 90 days from effective date (receipt); delay in charge-sheet justified for serious embezzlement probe.
Suspension review period starts from effective date; valid extension within 90 days despite delayed charge sheet in grave embezzlement cases.
Continued suspension without charge sheet issuance past 90 days isn't automatically void; justification based on severity of allegations and public interest may uphold the extension.
Suspension valid if reviewed within 90 days from effective date; delay in charge sheet justified by investigation complexity in large embezzlement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
