-1- 2025:CGHC:31927 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5638 of 2017 Shoeb Qazi S/o Late G. A. Qazi Aged About 33 Years Working As Labour officer, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Department of Labour, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Seema Thakur Working As Deputy Collector, O/o Collectorate Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.07.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 12/10/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent Collector; iii. To kindly quash the order dated 18/09/2017 (Annexure - P/8) issued by the respondent no. 1. iv. To kindly direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duty on the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner; V. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time in the year 2017, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur. He contends that on 17.09.2017, the petitioner was occupied in a meeting convened by the Ministry of Labour and hence, he could not attend the departmental program organized on the same date. 3) He further submits that the State Government, through respondent No.1, passed the order dated 18.09.2017 placing the petitioner under suspension. Further, vide order dated 12.10.2017, the Collector, Raipur communicated the essence of the State Government’s suspension order and simultaneously appointed respondent No.4, a Deputy Collector, to take charge of the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur. 4) It is argued that the Collector had no authority of law to alter or add anything in -3- the order of suspension issued by the State Government. The act of appointing another officer to the said post amounted to exceeding his jurisdiction. He would further argue that the absence of the petitioner from the departmental programme was not intentional and in the suspension order, the enquiry has not been contemplated therefore the order of suspension is bad in law. Thus, the petitioner prays for the quashing of both orders dated 18.09.2017 and 12.10.2017. 5) He also draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the In-charge Labour Minister later issued a communication to the respondent authorities seeking clarification as to why the petitioner was placed under suspension when he was actually attending the program organized by the Ministry of Labour. He would also submit that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and the same is still in operation. 6) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He contends that the order of suspension is appealable one, and the appointment of the Deputy Collector in place of the petitioner was just and proper for the smooth functioning of the Office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur. Hence, he submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. -4- 8) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was occupied in a program organized by the Labour Ministry on 17.09.2017. As a result, he could not attend the program organized by the Labour Department on the same date and therefore he was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.09.2017. 9) From a bare perusal of the order dated 12.10.2017 issued by the Collector, Raipur, it is apparent that no departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. However, through the said order, the Collector also appointed one Deputy Collector in place of the petitioner. 10) The action of the Collector, as reflected in the order dated 12.10.2017, clearly indicates that he exceeded his jurisdiction by modifying or altering the original suspension order passed by the competent authority, i.e., the State Government. 11) The appointing authority of the Assistant Labour Commissioner is the State Government, and thus, any order of suspension or disciplinary proceedings must flow from the State alone. 12) The suspension order dated 18.09.2017 does not contain any direction regarding the appointment of a substitute officer, therefore, the Collector had no authority of law to make any such arrangement or to entrust the charge to another officer. Consequently, the order dated 12.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby quashed. 13) With regard to the suspension order dated 18.09.2017, the record reflects that -5- the petitioner was not absent without cause, but was occupied in a meeting organized by the Labour Ministry, and this fact is evident from the communication made by the In-charge Minister. 14) Further, the suspension order does not contemplate any departmental inquiry, nor does it mention any allegations of misconduct. Suspension without contemplation of enquiry is arbitrary and not untenable. Therefore, the order of suspension dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure - P/8) is also quashed. 15) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim