1 2025:CGHC:12216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5259 of 2024 1 - Suchita Sahu D/o. Shri Shatruhan Lal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o. Achholi, Post And Tahsil - Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 4 - Block Education Officer Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 5 - District Education Officer Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 WPS No. 5267 of 2024 1 - Parakh Prakash Sonboir S/o Shri Nokheram Sonboir, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Amlideeh, Post Amlideeh, Tahsil - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the 3 cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No. 5259/2024 (Suchita Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned suspension order dated 30.7.2024 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent Rajnandgaon. No.5/District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner including cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher 4 (LB) posted at Government Primary School, Jarwahi, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Pursuant to the resolution dated 15.7.2024 passed by the Village Panchayat, Jarwahi for transferring the petitioner to another school as she misbehaved with the Sarpanch. A show cause notice has been issued aginst the petitioner on 16.7.2024 by respondent No.4- Block Education Officer, Dongargaon and sought her explanation within two days. Thereafter, on 18.7.2024 the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice before respondent No. 4- Block Education Officer, Dongargaon narrating therein the act of the Sarpanch and misuse of her position by leveling false allegations against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 25.7.2024 the petitioner has submitted her reply on the points of enquiry and denied all the allegations leveled against her. Thereafter, on 30.7.2024 respondent No. 5- District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon has issued an order and suspended the services of the petitioner on the ground of misconduct under Rule 9(2) of CG Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the office of Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon was made her headquarters. The Block Education Officer, Dongargaon has also issued a letter dated 31.7.2024 to the Head Master of the petitioner's school for service of the suspension order on the petitioner and relieving her to join the office of respondent No.4. 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sarpanch who misbehaved with the petitioner by misusing her position. He further submits that the suspension of the petitioner is contrary to para 5 of circular dated 23.11.2010 issued by the State Government which stipulates that suspension should be made only when misconduct prima facie entails major penalty whereas the alleged misconduct is such which calls for minor punishment. He further submits that the suspension order of the petitioner was issued on 30.7.2024 but till date memorandum of charges or charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389 wherein it is held in paras 13 and 14 of its judgment as under:- "13. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations 6 contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0199/1986: 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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/Charge- sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 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. 14. 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 7 officer/employee if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.” Hence, it is prayed that the impugned suspension order dated 30.07.2024 may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and not sustainable on the sole ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal u/s 23 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 before the competent authority against the impugned order of suspension, but, without availing the alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner has directly rushed to the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed for not availing of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. She further submits that a complaint alleging misbehavior on the part of the petitioner and one another teacher namely Parakh Prakash Sonboir and their irregular presence / attendance in the school alongwith the request of immediate transfer of the services of the petitioner to another place from Govt Primary School Jarwahi was received by the Collector, District Rajnandgaon from the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jarwahi Janpad Panchayat 8 Dongargaon and taking cognizance of the said complaint, the Collector District Rajnandgaon forwarded the said complaint to the DEO, Rajnandgaon for necessary action. She further submits that the aforesaid complaint was also made to the Block Education Officer, Dongargaon and taking cognizance of the said complaint, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 16.07.2024 and sought explanation within two days, due to which the petitioner submitted his explanation and the said explanation of the petitioner was duly considered and found unsatisfactory. She further submits that 3 members inquiry committee was constituted by the District Education Officer, District, Rajnandgaon with direction to conduct inquiry into the allegations contained in the complaints and submit a report within a period of 3 days vide order dated 23.07.2024. The inquiry committee started the inquiry and in the course of inquiry, the Head Mistress of Government Primary School, Jarwahi, namely, Smt. Damale and the petitioner along with another teacher Prarakh Prakash Sonboir were directed to appear before the committee on 25.07.2024. The statements were recorded. The committee has found that both the teachers i.e. the petitioner and Parakh Prakash Sonboir are irregular in school. Their behaviors are also not good with the public representatives. A report was prepared by the Committee and the same was submitted to the 9 DEO, District- Rajnandgaon for necessary action. It was found in the inquiry that the petitioner was negligent towards the duty. Therefore, the impugned suspension order is proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of the petition as well as from the documents appended to the petition, it appears that after passing of suspension order dated 30.07.2024 till date charge sheets have not been issued and the petitioners are still under going on suspension. Though the petitioners have challenged the order of suspension on the basis of circular dated 23.11.2010 issued by the State Government, according to which suspension should be made only on misconduct prima facie in cases of major penalty and according to the petitioners in the present cases the alleged misconduct even if taking into consideration in toto would be for minor punishment. 8. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under vide paras 13 and 14 of this judgment:- "13. 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 10 scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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 v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0199/1986: 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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/Charge- sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the 11 right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. 14. 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/Charge-sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.” 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners till date charge sheets have not been served upon the petitioners, delinquent and therefore, the suspension order cannot be extended any further period. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases also in view of the settled legal position and hence the impugned suspension orders are liable to be quashed only on the ground that till date charge sheets have not been issued. 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has also considering the aforesaid aspect and relying upon the judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 21, has categorically held that currency of the suspension order should not exceed beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is 12 not served on the delinquent officer/employee, and if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. 11. Since in the present matters charge sheets have not been filed against the petitioners and no order in respect of extension of suspension orders have been passed by the authorities as such in the considered opinion of this Court the life of suspension order cannot be considered to be extended automatically and accordingly the effect and operation of orders of suspension dated 30.07.2024 in respect of the petitioners would come to an end. This does not mean that the petitioners are exonerated from departmental enquiry. The respondent authorities are at liberty to issued charge sheet against the petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the suspension orders dated 30.07.2024 in respect of the petitioners are hereby revoked and the authorities may pass appropriate orders in respect of the posting of the petitioner in accordance with law. 13. The aforesaid exercise be done with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Raghu Jat Judge