2026:CGHC:1619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 226 of 2026 Geetanjali Chaouhan W/o Bulaki Lal Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade- Iii In The Court Of Judicial Magistrate First Class Junior, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus Principal District And Sessions Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

______________________________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For State : Ms. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

12/01/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, case is heard finally.

2. Grievance raised in this petition is that after issuance of order of suspension dated 28.07.2025 and completion of period of 90 days, respondent has not reviewed or revoked the order of suspension.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Deposition Writer) and Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR posted in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Gharghoda, was SINHA Date:

2026.01.13 +0530 put under suspension under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 vide order dated

28.07.2025. After issuance of order of suspension, more than 90 days have been elapsed and as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authorities are required to review the order of suspension after lapse of 90 days from the date of issuance of order of suspension. Respondent No.3 has not reviewed the order of suspension of petitioner and has not passed any order in this regard extending the period of suspension. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Another, reported (2015) 7 SCC 291

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1966.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. From the documents, it is appearing that petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 28.07.2025. As of now, petitioner completed more than 90 days of period of suspension i.e. more than 5 months. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent thereafter have not passed any order reviewing the order of suspension.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has considered the issue of keeping a Govt. servant under suspension beyond period of 90 days and observed that the Govt. servant cannot be kept under suspension for inordinate period.

Relevant portion of decision is extracted below for ready reference:-

“20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension Orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission