1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order of suspension dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the State Government (Urban Administration and Development Department) on the grounds as mentioned in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Social Welfare Officer by Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 12.04.2018. Petitioner was transferred from Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to Municipal Council, Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer. For the reasons assigned in the order Annexure P-1, order of suspension, petitioner was put under suspension invoking provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 1966”) and Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Services, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Service Rules, 2017”).

3. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is transferred on same terms and conditions of service of the State Government from Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to Municipal Council, Dallirajhara and therefore the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Services of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2018”). The Mayor-in-Council or the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation is the Appointing Authority and the authority who could have passed an order of suspension. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the order impugned (Annexure P-1) is passed by the State Government who is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Disciplinary Authority and therefore the order of suspension is bad in law. It is next contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in the order impugned (Annexure P-1), reference is made to Rule 33 of the Service Rules, 2017 but the order Annexure P-1 is passed without complying provisions as provided under Rule 33. If order is to be passed under Rule 33 then it can be after getting concurrence of the Appointing Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, if the disciplinary proceeding is pending against the servant. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any document(s) has been provided and therefore the order of suspension passed against petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner is an employee appointed by the Municipal Corporation as such the Commissioner is having the power to conduct departmental enquiry and if it is found that the petitioner while working in Municipal Council has committed any misconduct, the State Government could have got the concurrence for initiation of departmental enquiry. The order of suspension could not have been passed till the enquiry is pending against the employee. Suspension of petitioner based on the report of preliminary enquiry, which was neither supplied to petitioner nor opportunity of hearing was given. He would submit that in view of the violation of applicable service rules to the petitioner, in the facts of the case, the order of suspension is bad in law, hence, it be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. He would further submit that the writ petition being bereft of merit, it be dismissed. Petitioner though was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, however, looking to the administrative exigency, petitioner is transferred from the office of Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon to the office of Municipal Council, Dallirajhara as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer. When petitioner was discharging his duties as in-charge Chief Municipal Officer, he committed gross negligence tow