1 2025:CGHC:11900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1713 of 2025 1 - Smt. Gloriya Khalkho, W/o Pailoos Khalkho, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Hemu Nagar, P.S. Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Joint Director School Education, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer District Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Director Raipur Diocese Education Society, Khristbandhu Niwas, Bayron Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Principal Bharat Mata (H / M) Hr. Sec. School, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Secretary Bharat Mata (H / M) Hr. Sec. School, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Dr. Jitendra Kishor Mehta and Shri Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocates For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.03 11:25:41 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner has been suspended from her service. 10.3 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may kindly be given.” 2. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby petitioner's service has been suspended by the Secretary, Bharat Mata (H/M) Hr. Sec. School, Bilaspur (C.G.) because of undue pressure of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.), who himself has conducted enquiry instituting a committee of two Principals without any jurisdiction or authority, violating the provisions of "Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ka Nilamban) Niyam 1978". The District Education Officer, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.E.O.’) wrote a letter on 09.01.2025 with reference to the letter of Joint Director Educational Division, Bilaspur regarding the complaint against the petitioner (Annexure P-4), whereby he intimated the Management/ Secretary, Bharat Mata (H/M) Hr. Sec. School, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Secretary’) that a committee of two Principals has investigated into 3 the charges of conspiracy and fraudulent act levelled against the petitioner, which has affirmed the allegations. Further, he says that under "Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ka Vetan Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1979" management is the competent authority to act. Therefore, through disciplinary action suspend the petitioner and also asked to send compliance report. It is quite shocking and surprising that instead of forwarding the 'complaint' to the head of the institution or to the Secretary for necessary action, the D.E.O. by overpowering the head of the institution/Secretary himself conducted the enquiry without jurisdiction and authority with the help of two subordinate principals. This act of the D.E.O. itself rises several doubts and questions. It seems that he was motivated by some ulterior motives. In such a condition "Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ka Nilamban) Niyam 1978" (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Niyam 1978’) has enumerated adequate provisions, in case of non-teaching employee Principal/management is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But, here in this case, enquiry committee was not constituted by the school management, Principal was not made enquiry officer, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, copy of complaint and evidences thereof were not given to the petitioner, no opportunity to defence was given to the petitioner, outcome of the enquiry committee was neither shown to the petitioner nor petitioner's comment were ever sought. Gross violation in the due process of enquiry was done during the proceedings. Therefore, it can't be said that and impartial and judicious enquiry was accomplished to meet the end of justice. Prior to this, an enquiry was also instituted by the Secretary, based on the order of D.E.O. dated 19.09.2024, wherein no material fact was found in the allegations. It is also be noted that 4 an explanation was sought from the petitioner, by the Director, Raipur Diocese Education Society, Khristbandhu Niwas, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) vide his letter dated 16.05.2024 based on the allegations levelled against the petitioner and her husband. The explanation submitted by the petitioner satisfied the school authorities and proved her innocence. Annoyed, with continuous failure in entrapping the petitioner in their conspiracy, to fulfill their vested interest, a group of employees wanted to pressurise the management, to get themselves appointed on the grant-in-aid posts, instead of convincing the management on their merit, they choose the petitioner being her a lady and considering her a soft target, filed an FIR in local police station against her and her husband, levelling false, frivolous and fabricated allegations for taking money from complainants by giving false assurance to confirm their posting on grant-in- aid posts. It seems that initially they succeeded in their plan, when school management issued a notice calling explanation regarding such allegations from the petitioner and without waiting for the reply suspended her services. But soon the management come across the reality and by realising their mistake revoked the suspension order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 is bad in law and, therefore, hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16, 21, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and violation of Human Rights. The petitioner is posted as Clerk (Class-2) in the respondent institution and has discharged her duties with full satisfaction of the higher authorities. She has discharged her duties honestly and has maintained secrecy of the office as a loyal servant of the institution. During her duties, she has obeyed whatever orders and instructions given by the school authorities and has always received appreciation from higher authorities and by other colleagues. In this case, neither procedure of 5 enquiry were followed nor Head of the Institution was appointed as Enquiry Officer. ab-initio enquiry is illegal, without authority and jurisdiction hence deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The instructions issued by the D.E.O. vide his letter dated 09.01.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and authority and in violation of provisions of Niyam 1983, which empowers the Head of the Institution to act as enquiry officer and take decision thereof. It seems that through this letter the D.E.O. is exerting pressure on the Secretary to suspend the petitioner. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to set aside. In the instant matter, some of the complainants are habitual wrongdoers, their history is not clean. They committed wrong and apologies for their have severe often mistakes and omissions and moreover it seems that they have ulterior motive behind lodging complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint put forth against the petitioner or the statements given by them is doubtful and is not reliable. Hence the suspension order issued by the secretary to the petitioner is not beyond question. Even before the suspension order of dated 24.01.2025, some explanations had been sought by the administration from the petitioner on false, frivolous and fabricated allegations but every time petitioner has emerged spotlessly. School administration has always acknowledged and appreciated her honesty, loyalty and obedience. The petitioner is posted as Clerk Grade-2 (Clerk-cum- Accountant) in the respondent school. Most of the complainants are angry with her because she doesn't allow anyone to misuse her position. Despite petitioner's being friendly and cooperative with all the members of school staff, some of the complainants often attempt to misbehave with her, use abusive language for her and often try to malign her image among other members of the school staff. Aggrieved with their misbehave and afraid of their revengeful attitude and threats to harm her physically, petitioner has 6 submitted several complaints before the principal and the secretary of the school. Taking cognizance of such complaints administration has given warning and has issued notices to alert them for severe consequences. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the competent authority, i.e., appointing authority of the petitioner and, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. Since the impugned suspension order has been passed by the appointing authority itself, this Court does not find the present to be a fit case for interference with the impugned order of suspension. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds in the departmental inquiry which have been raised in this writ petition. Moreover, suspension is not a punishment as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 and Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh