Order On Board

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

“10.1.That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set aside the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by respondent no.3 in the interest of justice (Annexure P-1).

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent department to allow the petitioner to work on the post.

10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief (s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that though ground of jurisdiction of the authority is raised, however, she is not pressing the same in view of earlier decisions of this Court on that point.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that while being posted as Head Master in Government Middle School Matadevalaay Bhatapara, she made certain complaints before respondent No.3 against some teachers/staff of the school who were not regularly appearing in the school and were not performing duty properly. In stead of taking action on complaints of petitioner, respondent No.3 has taken action against the petitioner and placed her under suspension vide order impugned on the ground that in an inquiry conducted by a team of three members committee, she has been found guilty of committing misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules of 1965’). Reasons assigned in the suspension order is that petitioner is arbitrarily deputing and removing sanitation workers/sweepers; misbehaving with staff posted in school and making false complaint against them. She submits that the suspension order of petitioner has been issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice because prior to issuance of suspension order, any show-cause notice or opportunity of explaining and defending the misconduct alleged against petitioner has not been afforded to her.

4. She further submits that the order of suspension nowhere mentions that the same has been issued either in a contemplated disciplinary enquiry or in a pending enquiry against petitioner and therefore, the order of suspension is vitiated in law. Unless there is a disciplinary enquiry contemplated or pending, the petitioner could not have been suspended. Hence, she prays that the order of suspension be quashed/set aside.

5. Learned State Counsel opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, raises a preliminary objection that impugned suspension order passed under Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’) is an appealable order under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966. Thus, petitioner is having an alternate efficacious remedy of filing appeal against her suspension order. He further submits that, as the petitioner is not assailing suspension order on the question of jurisdiction of respondent No.3, petitioner is required to assail the order of suspension by filing an appeal in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1966 before the appellate authority. He further submits that even otherwise, the order of suspension is not an order of punishment, therefore, present petition is not entertainable on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy of appeal.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that this Court can interfere in the impugned order despite availability of alternative remedy as there is no material available against the petitioner for ordering her suspension and therefore, impugned order on face of it is illegal.

7. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

8. Pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner reveal that petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of order of suspension. From perusal