SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed 2026:CGHC:6889 by SYED ROSHAN NAFR ZAMIR ALI Date:

2026.02.07

17:12:11 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 404 of 2026

1. Sanjay Kumar Rathore S/o Late Shri Chhotelal Rathore Aged About 43 Years Headmaster (Primary School) At Government Primary School, Dumarmuda Cluster Amaldiha, Block Podi Uproda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Public Instruction Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District :

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. The District Education Officer District Korba, Chhattisgarh

5. Block Education Officer Block Podi Uproda, District Korba (CG)

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

06/02/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing / set aside the order dated 12.09.25 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.3, Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, who is holding post of Head Master in Primary School Dumarguda, is issued an order of suspension on 12.9.2025. This order is issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur who is not the authority competent to issue such an order. He contended that appointing authority of petitioner is the District Education Officer and as such, order of suspension could have been issued by the District Education Officer if any exigency arises to suspend the petitioner. Hence, the order of suspension passed by the Joint Director is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He next contended that in the order of suspension there is no mention that any inquiry is to be conducted against petitioner and therefore also petitioner could not have been suspended under Rule 9 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’). In support of his submission, he places reliance on the order dated 10.8.2015 passed in WPS No.2804/2015 (Ashok Kumar Chandrakar vs State of CG &

ors).

3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that it is not in dispute that appointing authority of petitioner is the District Education Officer. However, following the provisions under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966, the State Government has issued a circular dated 13.11.2019 determining rights and liabilities of the Joint Director and as per Clause-9 of this Circular, the Joint Director has the authority to pass suspension order against the government employees of whom he is appointing authority and subordinate employees belong to Class III and IV cadre. Hence, the order passed by the Joint Director is within jurisdiction pursuant to the order passed by the State Government.

4. She next contended that petitioner though filed writ petition on

12.1.2026, however, suppressed the material fact that charge sheet was issued to petitioner on 15.10.2025. She also contended that decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner is on different facts. In that case, the Collector has passed an order against the employee of School Education Department and in such a situation, this Court has made observation in the order passed in case of Ashok Kumar Chandrakar (supra). She submits that if petitioner is aggrieved with the order of suspension, he is having remedy of filing appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966 and