1 2025:CGHC:36987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8783 of 2023 Alexius Ekka S/o Late Josef Ekka Aged About 59 Years R/o B-22 Rajgharana Colony, Ameri, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. Heard Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Asha, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 19:03:01 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 6/10/2023, passed by the State Government (P/1) and petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue on the post of Chief Municipal Officer/ Zone Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension order dated 16.10.2023 has been passed by the State Government without proper application of mind and in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Rule 33 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2017"). It is contended that as per Rule 33 of the Rules of 2017, an order of suspension can be passed only if a departmental enquiry is either pending or contemplated, or if a criminal case is pending against the employee. In the present case, neither any departmental enquiry has been initiated nor is any criminal case pending against the petitioner. Even in the impugned order dated 10.04.2023, there is no mention of any proposed or contemplated departmental proceedings. As such, the order of suspension is not 3 sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the impugned suspension order does not reflect any application of mind or any reference to the mandatory requirement of obtaining concurrence, which is sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Rule 33 of the Rules of 2017. The order is completely silent on this aspect, rendering it bad in law. It is also pointed out that there is no provision under the applicable service rules for filing an appeal against the impugned suspension order passed by the State Government, thereby leaving the petitioner remediless except for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the suspension order was passed on 06.10.2023, and during the entire pendency of the present writ petition, no interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the suspension has remained in force without interference and has not been revoked or set aside till date. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the cause of action no longer survives and the writ petition appears to have been rendered infructuous. 5. Considering the matter in its entirety, particularly looking to the fact that the suspension order was passed on 06.10.2023 and no interim relief has been granted in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, and taking into consideration the 4 submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition has lost its efficacy, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to such remedies as may be available to her under the law, in case any cause of action arises in future. Any such remedy, if availed, shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh