1 2025:CGHC:18680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6171 of 2024 1 Shambhu Dayal Patnayak S/o Late Shri Rajaram Patnayak Aged About 60 Years Occupation Assistant Revenue Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Evam Vikas Vibhag, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director Nagariya Prashasan Evam Vikas Vibhag, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 Joint Director Nagariya Prashasan Evam Vikas Vibhag, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 Chairman Nagar Panchayat Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ..Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25 11:00:51 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Aman Tamboli, Advocate Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is challenging the order of suspension dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2, questioning the competency of the authority who has passed the suspension order on the ground that no Departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. 2. Presently, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order of suspension i.e. 20.09.2024, 45 days has already been expired but inspite of the expiry of 45 days period, no charge- sheet has been issued to the petitioner, hence the order of suspension will revoke automatically. He further submits that he has approached the authority by bringing the said fact in knowledge of the authority, but inspite of the fact, the petitioner is not being permitted to discharge his duties. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the grievance of the petitioner is that, then he may approach the competent authority by raising his grievance which is not a cause of action in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 documents. 5. Considering the submission made, as the petitioner has approached respondent No. 5 on the ground that after completion of 45 days no charge-sheet has been issued to him, it is directed that respondent No. 5 shall consider the grievance raised and decide the same and take necessary steps and pass any order in this regard within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti