1 2025:CGHC:16876 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2468 of 2025 1 R.K. Chouhan S/o Late Shri Jairam Chouhan Aged About 43 Years Assistant Professor (English), Posted As Assistant Director, Department Of Higher Education, Office Of Additional Director, Department Of Higher Education, Regional Office Bilaspur, Government E.R.R. P.G. Science College, Boys Hostel Campus, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 Director-Cum-Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.11 13:36:09 +0530 2 3 Under Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 11.04.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is questioning the order of suspension dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) by which the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the C.G. Civil Services (classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1966) on the ground that it is not maintainable. Though, the appeal has been preferred before the competent authority i.e. the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, however the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education who has passed the order of suspension, himself has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal has not been preferred before the competent authority and, as such, the same is not maintainable. 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Under Secretary is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, as the appeal (Annexure P-10) has been preferred before the Secretary but has been decided by the Under Secretary, who is not at all authorized to decide the appeal under the law. 3. Learned State counsel on instructions submits that the appeal of the petitioner has wrongly been decided by the Under Secretary and the appeal will be decided by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education within stipulated period. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-1, shows that the Under Secretary who has passed the suspension order (Annexure-P/2) of the petitioner himself has entertained the appeal and rejected the same on the ground that the appeal has been preferred before the wrong authority whereas the appeal has to be decided by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the submission made by the State counsel, the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. It is directed that Secretary, Department of Higher Education shall consider and decide the appeal (Annexure P-10) of the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not 4 expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. The Secretary is directed to consider and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to apprise the order of this court to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education today itself. 9. Certified copy today. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti