1 2025:CGHC:957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 56 of 2025 1 - Rath Ram Banjare S/o Shri Mahetar Ram Banjare Aged About 58 Years Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Government Higher Secondary School Khamhariya Block Bilaigarh District - Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Jiont Director School Education Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Sarangarh Bilaigarh Tahsil Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/s. 2. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and quash the impugned suspension order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 (Joint Director), in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 04.08.1992, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon and thereafter on 15.01.2008 he was promoted as Assistant Grade-III and thereafter looking to the performance of the work of petitioner he was again promoted as Assistant Grade-ll on 03.09.2013 which is a present place of working. Further, the petitioner is working sincerely & honestly to the department for such a long time i.e. 32 years, it is further submitted that till suspension order dated 20.09.2024, there was no any adverse remarks against the petitioner. But on 20.09.2024, the Joint Director Education 3 Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) has issued the suspension order to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not discharging his official duty and committed act of sending an erroneous proposal in favor of Mrs. Vineeta Baghel for compassionate appointment hence, this act of the petitioner is against the provisions of Rule 3 of C.G Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. He has also submitted that a similar order has been passed by this Hon'ble Court on 07.02.2024, in WPS No. 752/2024 i.e. Pradeep Kumar Yadav V/s State of Chhattisgarh and others in as under:- "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.10.2023 (AnnexureP/1) is hereby set side. Respondent authority/competent authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner in the services forthwith. Respondent authority are free to proceed further on the departmental enquiry which is going on against the petitioner". 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the light of order passed in Writ Appeal No.825 of 2024, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. In view of the above discussions, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Division Bench of this Court in which I was also a member has passed an order in Writ Appeal No.825 of 2024, wherein it is well defined that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The relevant paras 9 and 10 are 4 quoted below : 9. Having gone through the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the provisions of Section 9, sub-rule 5(a) and sub-section 5(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, is reproduced below:- “(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule, shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so: [Provided that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of forty-five days from the date of order of suspension in case a copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant by the disciplinary authority (if it is not the State Government) without obtaining the orders of the State Government for extension of the period for issue of the said documents, as required under sub- rule (2-b): Provided further that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension, in case the copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant.] [(c) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings” Admittedly, the aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that there is no requirement to extend the suspension order within 90 days nor it is mandatory to issue / pass the order of extension of suspension within a period of 90 days of the suspension. Moreover, the case law relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Kishore Kumar @ K. Kumar (Supra) is not 5 applicable in the case of the writ petitioner / respondent herein. 10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner / respondent herein when was pointed out to the provision of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, he could not give a satisfactory explanation for the same and further, as the writ petitioner has already been suspended, hence, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the competent authority to conclude the Departmental Enquiry which is pending against the writ petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two months, in accordance with law, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. Facing with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that a direction may be issued to conclude the departmental enquiry of the petitioner within a specified period. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the respondents/enquiry committee is directed to conclude the departmental enquiry in respect of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi