1 2025:CGHC:56826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8838 of 2023 1 - Xyz Nil ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Pandariya,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Kamlesh Patre (Shikshak Lb) Govt. Middle School, Damapur Atariya, Sankul Damapur Bazar, Block- Pandariya,, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 21/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and be please to pass an order directing the respondent competent authorities i.e. respondent no. 1 & Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2 to forthwith issue the charge sheet for conducting departmental enquiry against the respondent no. 5. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record relating to petitioner's matter if may deem fit and proper. 10.3 Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking redressal of grievances arising from the actions of respondent no. 5, who is also a teacher at the Govt. Middle School, Damapur Atariya, Block Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.). The petitioner lodged two separate First Information Reports (FIRs) against respondent no. 5 for serious criminal offenses. The first FIR, filed for offenses under Sections 298, 323, and 506-B of the IPC, led to an investigation and the filing of a charge sheet before the learned JMFC, Pandariya. The second FIR was lodged under Section 376(2) (n) of the IPC, alleging a serious offense of sexual misconduct, which also resulted in a charge sheet being filed before the competent Criminal Court. Despite respondent no. 5 being arrested on 26th July 2023 and remaining in custody for over 48 hours, he was not suspended from his duties, prompting the petitioner to file a representation to the concerned authorities (respondent no. 4) on 28th July 2023, requesting the suspension of respondent no. 5. Responding to the request of petitioner, the respondent no. 2 issued an order of suspension against respondent no. 5 on 24th August 2023. The petitioner further submits that as per Rule 9 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1966, if the charge sheet is not issued within 90 days of the suspension, the suspension must be revoked. Given the serious nature of the offenses for which respondent no. 5 has been charged, the petitioner contends that the authority is duty-bound to issue the charge sheet promptly to initiate departmental proceedings. However, no charge sheet has been issued within the stipulated time. As a result, the petitioner filed a further representation on 22nd September 2023, 3 urging the authorities to issue the charge sheet without delay for the commencement of departmental inquiry. The petitioner claims that the inaction of the respondent authorities in issuing the charge sheet and proceeding with the departmental inquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of established rules and procedures. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to issue a charge sheet against respondent no. 5 is both arbitrary and illegal. As per the well-established provisions under Rule 9 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1966, when a delinquent employee is suspended for committing serious criminal offenses, the competent authority is required to issue a charge sheet forthwith to initiate a departmental inquiry. This rule is intended to ensure timely action against erring employees and maintain discipline within the government service. In the present case, the police have already filed charge sheets in the competent Criminal Court against respondent no. 5 for committing serious offenses, including those under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which clearly demonstrate the gravity of the misconduct. Given the serious nature of the charges, the failure of the authorities to issue the charge sheet within the stipulated period is not only a violation of the rules but also an unjustifiable delay that prejudices the petitioner and undermines the integrity of the disciplinary process. The inaction in issuing the charge sheet is therefore illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the established procedure. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the continued failure of the authorities to take appropriate action raises serious concerns about their possible collusion with respondent no. 5. The authorities' delay in issuing the charge sheet is inexplicable and raises doubts about their intent to protect the delinquent employee. This kind of inaction fosters an environment of impunity and undermines the trust that citizens place in the disciplinary and legal systems. In view of the above, the 4 petitioner has been left with no other recourse but to approach this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to issue the charge sheet without further delay and proceed with the departmental inquiry against respondent no. 5. The petitioner prays that the Court intervene and direct the competent authority to fulfill its duty and ensure that the disciplinary process is initiated promptly, as mandated by law. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioner and respondent no. 5 are both teachers posted at the Govt. Middle School Damapur Atariya, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.). The petitioner has alleged that she lodged two separate FIRs against respondent no. 5. The first FIR pertains to offenses under Sections 294, 323, and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for which the police completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court. The second FIR alleges the commission of an offense under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, in which the police also filed a charge sheet after conducting their investigation. The petitioner further submits that she made a representation to the respondent authorities on 28th July 2023, requesting that an inquiry be initiated against respondent no. 5 due to his arrest and detention for more than 48 hours. In response, the respondent authorities suspended respondent no. 5 from service on 24th August 2023, and this suspension remains in effect to date. It is submitted that the respondent authorities acted promptly in suspending respondent no. 5 after receiving the petitioner's representation and as per the provisions of the relevant rules governing such actions. Furthermore, the learned State counsel submits that, according to the information provided by the Police Station Kunda, respondent no. 5 has been granted bail. While the respondent no. 5 is suspended from service, it is important to note that the criminal proceedings against him are still pending before the learned Trial Court. As the criminal proceedings are ongoing, the 5 learned State counsel submits that no further action can be taken against respondent no. 5 at this stage, until the criminal trial concludes. Once the trial is complete, the appropriate further action will be taken in accordance with the law and the relevant departmental rules. In light of the above submissions, it is clear that the respondent authorities have acted in accordance with the law and have taken appropriate action by suspending respondent no. 5 in view of the serious charges against him. As the matter is still under judicial consideration, the petitioner’s request for immediate issuance of a charge sheet for a departmental inquiry is premature and without merit. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the present petition is devoid of any merit and substance, and as such, it should be dismissed accordingly. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and the documents submitted, this Court finds that the request made by petitioner for immediate issuance of a charge sheet for the departmental inquiry is premature and lacks merit. While the petitioner has raised legitimate concerns regarding the delay in issuing the charge sheet, it is important to note that the criminal proceedings against respondent no. 5 are still ongoing. The departmental proceedings can only be initiated after the conclusion of the criminal trial, as the findings of the Criminal Court may be relevant to the departmental inquiry. 7. Rule 9 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1966, does require the issuance of a charge sheet within a specified time frame in case of suspension. However, in the present case, the authorities have acted in accordance with the law by suspending respondent no. 5 and allowing the criminal trial to proceed. It is not uncommon for the departmental inquiry to follow the criminal 6 proceedings, especially when the charges involve serious criminal offenses. Therefore, the inaction in issuing the charge sheet does not appear to be arbitrary or illegal, as the respondent authorities are awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial before taking further steps. Moreover, it is well settled that compassionate or disciplinary proceedings cannot be rushed if they are inextricably linked to criminal trials. This approach ensures that the findings in the criminal court are not prejudiced by any premature departmental inquiry. 8. In light of the above findings, this Court concludes that the request made by petitioner to direct the respondent authorities to immediately issue the charge sheet for conducting a departmental inquiry is without merit. The respondent authorities have acted within their legal discretion, and the criminal proceedings must be allowed to run their course before any departmental proceedings are initiated. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, as it lacks substance and merit, and no further direction is warranted at this stage. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE