1 2025:CGHC:39331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8667 of 2025 1 - Ravi Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Awatar Sharma Aged About 29 Years At Present Suspended From The Post Of Child Development Project Officer In Integrated Child Development Project, ( Women And Child Development Department ) At Block Farsabahar, Tahsil Farsabahar District- Jashpur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 2 - The Director Directorate, Women And Child Development Department Indravati Bhawan, Ii Nd Floor Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur ( C.G.). 3 - The Collector Jashpur District- Jashpur ( C.G. ). 4 - The District Programme Officer Women And Child Development Department, Jashpur, District- Jashpur ( C.G. ). ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P/1), by which the services of the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.25 18:31:57 +0530 2 petitioner has been suspended and he claimed the following relief(s) in the writ petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the suspension order dated 15/04/2025 which is arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus and direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner and cancel the suspension order and reinstate him to his service, in the furtherance of justice. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Statistical Officer in the Women and Child Development Department, Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 16.01.1990. After bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, his services have been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and he was posted at Integrated Child Development Project Office, Bilaigarh. Vide order dated 13.03.2024, he was transferred to Integrated Child Development Project Office, Tapkara (Farsabahar), District Jashpur. On 23.08.2024, a complaint was made against the petitioner alleging that he is demanding money for issuance of orders for up-gradation of the Mini Anganbadi Centres to the Main Anganbadi Centres. On 23.08.2024, the petitioner’s services 3 were attached to the office of District Programme Officer and Child Development, District Jashpur. On 25.08.2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Farsabahar submitted an inquiry report to the respondent No.3, in which the allegation was against the dealing clerk, but not against the petitioner. On 12.09.2024, the respondent No.4 constituted an inquiry committee to inquire into the complaint and then on 01.10.2024, the inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry committee before the respondent No.4, in which no allegation was found proved against the petitioner. On 24.03.2025, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.4 to take a decision on his suspension and to cancel the same and he may be posted to his original place of posting. Vide order dated 15.04.2025, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that the allegation leveled against him was inquired and from the inquiry report obtained from the Collector, Jashpur, the departmental enquiry was recommended, which is misconduct under Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965 and his headquarter is fixed at the office of District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja. He would further submit that on 23.05.2025, the respondent No.1 issued an article of charges and on 01.07.2025, he submitted his counter to the article of charges before the departmental proceeding. The petitioner is suspended from 15.04.2025 and his suspension cannot be continued after expiry of 90 days, yet no order of revocation of the suspension has been passed by the authorities, which is violative of Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short ‘CCA Rules, 1966’) and his suspension order is liable to be quashed. 4 He would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and another”, (2015) 7 SCC 291. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes, and has submitted that Rule 9(5)(a) of the Rules of 1966 clearly provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule shall continue to remain in force, until it is modified or revoked by the authorities competent to do so and there is no requirement to extend the suspension order within 90 days. Non- passing of the order of extension of suspension order within 90 days of suspension is not contrary to the statute, therefore, it is not mandatory for the authorities to issue the order of extension of suspension order. Considering the allegation against the petitioner and the inquiry report, he is suspended and his headquarter has been fixed. The departmental enquiry is pending against him, in which he has already filed his counter, and there is no ground to challenge the suspension order dated 15.04.2025. He would also submit that in view of the provisions of Rule 9(5)(a) of the CCA Rules, 1966, the suspension order should not be automatically vacated only on the ground of not passing the reasoned order within time. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 15.04.2025 on the ground that, after lapse of 90 days from the date of order the suspension is automatically revoked in absence of any order 5 of extension of suspension. Rule 9(5)(a) of the CCA Rules, 1966 provides that:- “9(5)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule, shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so: [Provided that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of forty-five days from the date of order of suspension in case a copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant by the disciplinary authority (if it is not the State Government) without obtaining the orders of the State Government for extension of the period for issue of the said documents, as required under sub-rule (2-b): Provided further that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension, in case the copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub- rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant.]” 6. Admittedly, the aforesaid provisions clearly indicates that there is no requirement to extend the suspension order within 90 days, nor it is mandatory to issue any order of extension of suspension within such period. In the present case, charge sheet has been issued on 23.05.2025. 7. In the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh v. Pradeep Sharma”, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held in its order dated 05.12.2024, passed in WA No. 825 of 2024 that, there is no requirement to extend the suspension order within 90 days nor it is mandatory to issue/pass order of extension of suspension within a period of 90 days of the suspension. 6 8. As per the submission of the petitioner himself, a charge sheet was issued to him on 23.05.2025 by the respondent No.1 and he filed his counter to the charge sheet on 01.07.2025 and in such situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner is victimized by delay in the departmental proceeding or there would be an undue delay, which caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) could not be benefited to the petitioner for the reason that the services of Ajay Kumar Choudhary was governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, wherein Rule 10(7) of the clearly stipulates that an order of suspension is not valid beyond 90 days, unless extended after review, but in the present case, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 9 of CCA Rules, 1966 and there is no such provision in the said Rules, therefore, it is not mandatory for the authorities to issue the order of extension of order of suspension within 90 days of suspension, and thus, the judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) could not extend any benefit to the petitioner. 9. For the foregoing considerations, I do not find any scope of interference in the order impugned to quash the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved