1 2025:CGHC:58933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13566 of 2025 1 - Jagatpal Nikunj S/o Late Dukhiyaram Nikunj Aged About 57 Years R/o Karbala Road, Tanki-Toli, Jashpur Town, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer (D E O) District Jashpur, C.G. 4 - Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director Divisional Public Instruction, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Tehsildar And Assistant Returning Officer Manora, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Block Education Officer (B E O) Block Manora, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. The petitioner who is working as Head master at Govt. Primary School, Harri, Block Manora, District Jashpur was engaged in Special Intensive ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.12.09 12:56:01 +0530 2 Revision (SIR) and who was appointed as Presiding Officer on polling booth No. 185, Harri, Tahsil, Manora vide order dated 06.10.2025. On 20.11.2025 a show cause notice was issued by the Block Education Officer, Manora that the petitioner is absent in his duty which is violative of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, and asked for his explanation, thereafter, vide order dated 21.11.2025, the services of the petitioner has been suspended by the District Education Officer, Jashpur and his Headquarter is fixed at the office of Block Education Officer, Block Manora, District Jashpur. The suspension of the services of the petitioner was on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar-cum-Assistant Returning Officer, Manora, District Jashpur dated 20.11.2025 that the petitioner is found absent in his duty of SIR work. The said order dated 21.11.2025 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 20.11.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and calling his explanation within two days, however, on the next date itself his services have been suspended which is in great violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposes and have submitted that against the suspension order of the petitioner he has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before appellate authority provided under Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the present petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 3 5. Rule 23 of the CCA Rule, 1996 provides for a departmental appeal against the order of the suspension of the employee to the State Government which reads as under: “23. Orders against which appeal lies.- Subject to the provisions of Rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely- (i) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or reviewing authority; (ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10; (iii) [an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9;] Explanation. - In this rule the expression "Government servant" includes a person who has ceased to be in Government service.” 6. In view of the provisions of Rule 23 of CCA Rules 1996, although availability of statutory alternative remedy is not a complete bar, however, the petitioner could not make out any arbitrariness in the suspension order or any exceptional case to interfere with his suspension order by this Court, therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the suspension order before the appropriate authority under the CCA Rules 1966, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok