1 2025:CGHC:47381-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 682 of 2025 Smt. N. J. Ekka W/o C.L. Khare Aged About 59 Years R/o Sasaha Road, Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Petitioner In Writ Petition) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In Writ Petition) 2 - The Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In Writ Petition) 3 - The Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In Writ Petition) 4 - The District Education Officer District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4 In Writ Petition) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.09.2025 1 Heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:32:00 +0530 2 2 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set-aside the order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 7839 of 2025 as well as quash the suspension order dated 04.07.2025 A/2 (Annexure-A/2) of the instant appeal and Annexure-P/1 of writ petition) in the interest of justice.” 3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.7839/2025 (Smt. N.J. Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed, thereby upholding the action/decision of the respondents which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 4 Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1989. She had been promoted on the post of Principal on 07.11.2007. Subsequently, she hadbeen posted on deputation under the SAGES English Medium School, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa. On a unanimous complaint received through online portal on 15.12.2024, that the appellant/writ petitioner whas taken illegal gratification for providing admission of the children in 3 SAGES school, Pamgarh, the District Education Officer constituted a two members’ inquiry committee on 10.01.2025. The District Education Officer also sought explanation on 21.03.2025 from the petitioner, which was properly replied by the appellant/writ petitioner on 24.03.2025 and thereafter the suspension order dated 04.07.2025 has been passed by the respondent No.1, which was under challenge in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 5 Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.7839/2015, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.07.2025. 6 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.7839/2015, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, is unsustainable in law and on facts, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge failed to consider the specific grounds raised by the appellant regarding lack of authority and jurisdiction. It is further contended that the impugned suspension order dated 04.07.2025 has been issued in utter violation of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 4 The order does not disclose that any departmental inquiry is either pending or contemplated against the appellant. On the contrary, the suspension order has been passed as if the petitioner has already been held guilty without conducting a full-fledged departmental inquiry, which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel further submits that the inquiry alleged to have been conducted is wholly incompetent, as the same was carried out by officers who are admittedly junior in rank to the petitioner, thereby vitiating the entire process. It is also contended that during the academic year 2024–25, the admission under SAGES was duly conducted in the presence of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, and Block Education Officer strictly through the lottery system, leaving no scope for any allegation of irregularity or malpractice. Despite this, the petitioner has been arbitrarily placed under suspension. Learned counsel has further drawn attention to Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966 as well as the circular dated 31.07.2006, and the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2918/2006, to submit that the suspension order dated 04.07.2025 is patently illegal and contrary to the settled principles laid down therein, and therefore, is liable to be quashed. It is lastly submitted that even the parents, on whose supposed complaints the action is claimed to have been initiated, have categorically denied making any such complaints against the appellant/writ petitioner and have further stated that they never paid any bribe money to the petitioner. Thus, the very foundation of the action 5 stands demolished. On these grounds, it is humbly submitted that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 as well as the suspension order dated 04.07.2025, and grant appropriate relief in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. 8 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the impugned order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. The learned Single Judge has duly considered the facts and material placed on record and upheld the validity of the suspension order in accordance with law. It is submitted that the suspension order dated 04.07.2025 has been issued strictly in terms of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9(1)(a) thereof. The object of placing a government servant under suspension is to ensure free, fair and impartial inquiry, and to prevent him from interfering with or influencing the process of investigation and departmental proceedings. The contention of the appellant/writ petitioner that no departmental inquiry is pending or contemplated is misconceived. The competent authority has clearly indicated that a preliminary inquiry into serious allegations of demand of bribe and irregularities in the admission process was undertaken, and upon finding prima facie material against the petitioner, the order of suspension was issued 6 pending departmental proceedings. It is further contended that the appellant/writ petitioner cannot question the competence of the inquiry officer at this stage, as such objections may be raised during the course of disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. Mere allegation that the inquiry officer is junior does not vitiate the proceedings when the appointing/disciplinary authority has lawfully entrusted the inquiry to a designated officer. 9 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the allegations of irregularity in the admission process under SAGES for the year 2024–25 are grave in nature, and the contention that the process was conducted through lottery in the presence of other officers cannot absolve the petitioner from the allegations levelled against him. The denial of certain parents at a later stage does not dislodge the material collected during the preliminary inquiry indicating serious misconduct. It is lastly contended that suspension is not a punishment but only a temporary measure pending inquiry, and the same cannot be equated with a finding of guilt. The circular dated 31.07.2006 and the order in W.P. No. 2918/2006 do not come to the aid of the petitioner, as each case depends upon its own facts, and in the present case, the competent authority, after application of mind, found it expedient to place the petitioner under suspension. As such, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 10 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at 7 length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.7839/2025. 11 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge after applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, 1994 (4) SCC 126, M. Paul Anthoni v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, 1999 (3) SCC 679, Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggrawal, 2013 (16) SCC 147 and the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of G.S. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh and others decided on 15.02.2012 in Writ Appeal No.80/2012 as well as Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “12. It is settled law that the order of suspension is not that of punishment. The requirement of the law is that the reason should be there in the order of suspension. In the present case, the reason for the suspension of the petitioner is mentioned that, she obtained illegal gratification of students for their admission in the school and the matter was preliminary inquired by the two members’ committee and found the allegation true, which is the misconduct as provided under Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The petitioner is having specific remedy of appeal 8 before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules. Though, the petitioner tried to establish that the members of inquiry committee were junior to the petitioner and the matter should be inquired by the senior to the petitioner, but in the present case from perusal of the order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1), it transpires that the matter has already been inquired and the report has been submitted by the two members’ inquiry committee, even otherwise, it is only a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the correctness of the complaint. No prejudice or mala fide is alleged against them; therefore, this Court does not find it to be sufficient to interfere with the impugned order. It further transpires from the document (Annexure P/6) that the petitioner was also served with a notice to submit her explanation and she submitted her explanation on 24.03.2025. Thus, the opportunity to explain the allegation was also provided to the petitioner. 13. In view of the foregoing analysis and also in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any mala fide or arbitrariness in passing the suspension order and further is of the opinion that the petitioner does not make out any exceptional case to interfere with her suspension order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at 9 liberty to challenge her suspension order before the State Government as provided under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, 1966, if so advised. 14. In the result, the petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed.” 12 After due consideration of the rival contentions, the pleadings of the parties, and the documents brought on record, as well as the settled principles of law governing the field, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view than that adopted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has meticulously appreciated the factual backdrop, examined the scope of judicial review in matters of suspension, and applied the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. 13 It is trite that suspension is not to be treated as a punishment but is only an interim measure intended to facilitate an impartial inquiry and to maintain purity of administration. The competent authority, upon receipt of complaints and after a preliminary fact- finding exercise, has chosen to place the appellant under suspension pending departmental proceedings. Such an order does not visit the appellant with any stigma of guilt at this stage and is only intended to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted without hindrance. 14 The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the inquiry was conducted by officers junior in rank is also not of much 10 significance at this stage, for the said inquiry is only preliminary in nature and is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the delinquent employee. The appellant will have ample opportunity to raise all permissible objections before the disciplinary authority in the course of the regular departmental proceedings. 15 We also find that the appellant has been afforded opportunity to submit her explanation prior to issuance of the suspension order, and the same has been duly considered by the competent authority. No mala fides or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents has been demonstrated before us. In fact, the statutory scheme under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, provides the appellant with a specific remedy to assail the suspension order before the State Government, which she may avail, if so advised. 16 In the totality of circumstances, we find ourselves in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge. No ground for interference in the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 is made out. 17 Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu