1 2025:CGHC:18697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5109 of 2018 1 - Achchheram Sahu S/o Kanthiram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bade Devgaon, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Hospital Colony, Sakti, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Prateek Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2025 1. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is the prolonged period of suspension w.e.f. 2.1.2015. 2. According to the petitioner, working on the post of Health Worker, the petitioner has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 2.1.2015. The petitioner has been suspended on account of his implication SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- in a criminal case, Crime No.102 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 376D, 450, 353, 506, 109 & 120B of IPC. Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted vide order dated 28.11.2015, passed by the learned First Additional Session Judge, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa. The criminal appeal bearing CRA No.1558 of 2015 against the conviction order is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, and vide order dated 3.8.2016, the petitioner’s application for grant of bail was allowed. 3. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, beyond the period of 90 days, the authorities are required to reconsider the issue whether the service of the petitioner needs to be continued under suspension or not. He would submit that, in the present case, no such decision has been taken by the authorities concerned, till date. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petition, at this juncture, stands disposed of directing respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and take a decision as to whether the service of the petitioner needs to be continued under suspension or not. 5. According to the petitioner, the criminal case is progressing at a 3 very slow pace, and as of now, even the charges have not been framed. This aspect should also be taken into account by the authorities while reconsidering the case of the petitioner. 6. Let a decision be taken by respondent No.2 at the earliest, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi