JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

1. The petitioners, who are the employees of Council for Higher Secondary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar have filed this application seeking to quash the order of suspension dated 22.09.2014 vide Annexures-6 and 12 respectively passed by the Chairman, C.H.S.E., Odisha, Bhubaneswar and further seek for a direction to opposite party no.2 to reinstate them to continue as before with all consequential service benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that some of the petitioners who are elected members of the Employees Association have demanded before the authority with regard to its functioning as well as extension of service benefits as due and admissible, which have been reported in daily “Sambad? on 11.07.2014 under the caption ?Kathagadare Council?. Basing on such paper publication, they were called upon to submit explanation. On receipt of such explanation, the petitioners were warned by the authority not to repeat such type of conduct/activity in future or else action as deemed proper shall be initiated against them and they were directed to resume duty. It is stated that thereafter demand was raised before the Chairman to implement the 15 points demands along with recommendation of Hon?ble Justice V. Gopalaswamy, Retd. Judge of Orissa High Court regarding payment of salary, pension etc. like Government servant. Therefore, the petitioners raised a 18 point demand before the Hon?ble Chief Minister of Odisha along with copy to Minister, Higher Education and Secretary, Higher Education, Odisha including the remedial measures suggested by the Suggestion Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice V. Gopalaswamy, Retd. Judge, Orissa High Court in the matter of conduct of examinations and their remedial measures and the guidelines for appointment of Examiners, Chief Examiners and question setters and the procedure for evaluation and other connected relevant matters. Instead of solving the demand, in order to throttle the voice of the petitioners who have raised objection against the corruption as well as non-implementation of the order passed by Hon?ble V. Gopalaswamy, Retd. Judge, Orissa High Court with regard to reforms of the examination, they were placed under suspension vide order dated 22.09.2014 of the Chairman of the Council. Hence this application.

3. Mr. M. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that there is no provision like clause-9(a) of Sub Rule-(1) of Rule-12 of O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 and therefore the order impugned passed in exercise of power under clause-9(a) of Sub Rule-(1) of Rule-12 placing the petitioners under suspension was passed without application of mind. Further fixation of their headquarters at a place other than the place where they are working is also contrary to the provisions of law. More so, such change of headquarters during suspension period is nothing but transfer of the petitioners is within the meaning of Rule-48 of Orissa Service Code. Therefore the same could not have been done by the authority. It is stated that the order of suspension has been passed without contemplating a disciplinary proceeding nor any criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioners. It is further stated that the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 ipso facto cannot apply to the employees of the council inasmuch as there is no contemplation of initiation of disciplinary proceeding or any criminal proceeding against them, therefore the order of suspension cannot sustain. Hence, he seeks for interference of this Court. In order to substantiate his case, reliance has been placed on the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India through its Secretary and another, 2015 (I) OLR (SC) 602.

4. Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the Council strenuously urged that pending contemplation of disciplinary proceeding the order of suspension has been passed. As per the resolution of the Council, the provisions of O.C.S.