2025:CGHC:23619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3645 of 2025 Suraj Kumar Nag S/o Late J.N. Nag Aged About 54 Years Assistant Superintendent Directorate Health Services, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh R/o Block B/209 Vijeta Complex, Rajendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Cum Director Health Services, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh ...Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri FS Khare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. Grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 has not reviewed or revoked the order of his suspension passed on 24.07.2024 (Annexure P1) even after completion of more than 90 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Superintendent in Health Department, Raipur, was put under suspension on the ground that petitioner was implicated in one criminal case. From the date of suspension, as of now, about 11 months have already been elapsed, but till date order of suspension is not reviewed or revoked by respondent No.2. He submits that according to decision of Hon’ble Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.06.19 18:44:52 +0530 Wps 3645 of 2025 2 Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Anr (2015) 7 SCC 291, after completion of 90 days from the date of issuance of suspension order, competent authority is required to review the order of suspension and a Govt. employee cannot be kept under suspension beyond period of 90 days, without passing any further order. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner has already submitted representation raising grievance as raised in this writ petition for his reinstatement on 29.04.2025, if the representation is not yet decided, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) dealing with the issue, has held thus: “20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorize detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of Wps 3645 of 2025 3 the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension Orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of Charges/ Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the 4 proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have Wps 3645 of 2025 4 been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 6. In case at hand, petitioner was suspended vide order dated 24.07.2024, as of now more than 90 days have already been completed and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, till date, order of suspension of the petitioner was not reviewed, or revoked by respondent No.2. 7. In the above facts of the case, this writ petition at this stage, stands disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No.2, and if such representation is submitted, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 8. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma