2026:CGHC:3722 Digitally signed YOGESH b T y IW Y A O R G I ESH NAFR TIWARI Date: 2026.01.21 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8906 of 2023 Pushp Sagar Binayak S/o. Shri Parashu Ram Binayak, Aged About 38 Years Working As A Sub Inspector, Reserve Police Line Bijapur, District - Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002.

3 - The Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range Jagdalpur, District -

Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanker Range, District -

Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

5 - The Superintendent of Police, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

21.01.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

“10.1 To call for entire records pertaining to petitioner's case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.

10.2 To quash the impugned order dated

31.01.2023 (Annexure P/2).

10.3 To direct respondents to pay to the petitioner the entire amount alongwith interest @10% per annum.

10.4 To direct respondents to grant petitioner all consequential benefits.

10.5 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as a Sub-Inspector and has always discharged his duties with sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors. Despite this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him levelling four charges, including alleged harassment of his wife Smt. Suman Verma in connection with dowry demand, violation of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules, failure to adhere to Government policy for prevention of offences against women, and remaining absent for 225 days during the period of suspension from 10.02.2018 to 22.09.2018. It is submitted that all the charges were examined by the disciplinary authority, Respondent No. 4, and by order dated 01.08.2022, the petitioner was fully exonerated, and the departmental proceedings were closed. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner was kept under suspension from 12.02.2018 to 24.12.2020, i.e., for 1046 days, and during this entire period he was paid only 50% of his salary. Learned counsel contends that suspension is preventive in nature and not punitive, and the authorities are bound to review the quantum of subsistence allowance periodically, normally enhancing it to 75% after 90 days and to 90% if the suspension extends beyond 180 days. In the petitioner’s case, no such review was undertaken, which reflects arbitrariness and discrimination.

3. Learned counsel further submits that despite being fully exonerated, the respondents passed an order dated 31.01.2023 treating 225 days of suspension as “no work, no pay” and the remaining 821 days as a period under suspension. This action is submitted to be without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel points out that representations filed by the petitioner on 03.04.2023 and 20.09.2023 seeking rectification of the subsistence allowance and payment of full salary have not been considered, demonstrating further prejudice and bias. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially placed under suspension pursuant to Crime No. 35/2017 registered on a complaint by his wife. The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, on 28.02.2019, yet his suspension continued for another one year and four months until it was revoked on 24.12.2020. Learned counsel contends that continuation of suspension after acquittal and subsequent i